iiiiiiii: 


*v^i_>.'V^4i'  -i-'j->v.i/'":.*n 


^■t^i_jii!2'.v:srfy..EL:» 


7.  lr.'0  2^ 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


*** 


% 


Presented   byTv-O^TBTB.VJ^cAr^VaV  d  ,"X>.1>. 


Division 
Section  ■■ 


[PRICE  FIFTY  CFJVrS]        '^t-^^-"''^ 

THE    CASE 

AGAINST 

PROFESSOR    BRIGGS 

PART    II. 


I.  The  Preliminary  Objection  of  Professor  Briggs  to  the 
Status  of  the  Committee  of  Prosecution,  November  9,  1892  ; 
THE  Action  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  thereon;  and 
the  Complaint  of  Professor  Briggs  to  the  Synod  of  New 
York. 

11.  The  Amended  Charges  and  Specifications  submitted  to  the 
Presbytery,  November  9,  1892. 

III.  The   Preliminary    Objections  of    Professor  Briggs  to   the 

Amended  Charges  and  Specifications,  November  9,  1892. 

IV.  The  Action  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  on  these   Pre- 

liminary   Objections;    and   the   Complaints   of   Professor 
Briggs  to  the  Synod  of  New  York. 

V.  The  Evidence  submitted  by  Professor  Briggs. 

VI.  The  Exceptions  taken  by  Professor  Briggs  to  the  new  mat- 

ter introduced  by  the   Prosecution  into  their  argument 
in  rebuttal. 

VII.  The  Final  Judgments  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,   De- 

cember 30,  1892,  AND  January  9,  1893. 


NEW   YORK 
CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

1893 


THE    CASE 

AGAINST 

PROFESSOR    BRIGGS 


DR.   BRIGGS'  WORKS 

AMERICAN  PRESBYTERIANISM.  Its  Origin  and  Early 
History,  together  with  an  Appendix  of  Letters  and 
Documents,  many  of  which  have  recently  been  dis- 
covered.    Cr.  8vo,  with  maps $3.00 

MESSIANIC  PROPHECY.  The  Prediction  of  the  Fulfil- 
ment of  Redemption  through  the  iMessiah.  A  critical 
study  of  the  Messianic  passages  of  the  Old  Testament 
in  the  order  of  their  development.    Cr.  8vo,    .     $2.50 

BIBLICAL  STUDY.  Its  Principles,  Methods,  and  Historj- 
of  its  Branches.     Fourth  edition.     Cr.  8vo,     .     $2.50 

WHITHER?  A  Theological  Question  for  the  Times. 
Third  edition.     Cr.  Svo, $1.75 

THE  AUTHORITY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPtURE.  An  Inaugural 
Address.     Third  edition.    Cr.   Svo,  paper,     50  cts. 

THE  BIBLE,  THE  CHURCH,  AND  THE  REASON.  The 
Three  Grea-t  Fountains  of  Divine  Authority.  Cr. 
Svo, $i.7S 

BIBLICAL  HISTORY.    Cr.  Svo,  paper,  .        .        .     30  cts. 

THE  CASE  AGAINST  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS.  Cr.  Svo, 
paper, 50  cts. 

THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS.  Cr.  Svo, 
paper, 50  cts. 


THE    CASE 

AGAINST 

PROFESSOR    BRIGGS 

PART    II. 


I.  The  Preliminary  Objection  of  Professor  Briggs  to  the 
Status  of  the  Committee  of  Prosecution,  November  q,  1892  • 
THE  Action  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  thereon;  and 
the  Complaint  of  Professor  Briggs  to  the  Synod  of  New- 
York. 

II.  The  Amended  Charges  and  Specifications  submitted  to  the 
Presbytery,  November  9,  1892. 

III.  The    Preliminary    Objections  of    Professor  Briggs  to   the 

Amended  Charges  and  Specifications,  November  9,  1892. 

IV.  The  Action  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  on  these  Pre- 

liminary   Objections;    and   the   Complaints   of   Professor 
Briggs  to  the  Synod  of  New  York. 

V.  The  Evidence  submitted  by  Professor  Briggs. 

VI.  The  Exceptions  taken  by  Professor  Briggs  to  the  new  mat- 
ter introduced  by  the  Prosecution  into  their  argument 
IN  rebuttal. 

VII.  The  Final  Judgments  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  De- 
cember 30,  1892,  and  January  9,  1893. 


NEW   YORK 
CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

1893 


Copyright,  1893,  by 
CHARLES  AUGUSTUS  BRIGGS. 


PRESS  OF 

BDWARD  O.  JENKINS'  SON, 

NEW  YORK. 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 


I.  The  Preliminary  Objection  of  Professor  Briggs 
TO  THE  Status  of  the  Committee  of  Prose- 
cution, November  9,  1892;  the  Action  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  thereon  ;  and  the 
Complaint  of  Professor  Briggs  to  the  Synod 
of  New  York i 

II.  The  Amended  Charges  and  Specifications  sub- 
mitted TO  THE  Presbytery,  November  9,  1892.      29 

III.  The    Preliminary    Objections    of    Professor 

Briggs  to  the  Amended  Charges  and  Speci- 
fications, November  9,  1892 47 

IV.  The  Action  of  the   Presbytery  of  New  York 

ON  these  Preliminary  Objections;  and  the 
Complaints  of  Professor  Briggs  to  the  Synod 
OF  New  York 69 

V.  The  Evidence  submitted  by  Professor  Briggs.      79 

VI.  The  Exceptions  taken  by  Professor  Briggs  to 
the  new  matter  introduced  by  the  Prosecu- 
tion  INTO  their  argument    IN    REBUTTAL I43 

VII.  The  Final  Judgments  of  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York,  December  30,  1892,  and  January  9, 
1893 155 


THE  PRELIMINARY  OBJECTION  OF  PROF.  BRIGGS  TO 
THE  STATUS  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  OF  PROSECUTION, 
NOVEMBER  9TH,  1 892  ;  THE  ACTION  OF  THE  PRESBY- 
TERY OF  NEW  YORK  THEREON  ;  AND  THE  COMPLAINT 
OF  PROF.   BRIGGS  TO  THE   SYNOD   OF  NEW  YORK. 

A.  The  preliminary  objection  of  Prof.  Briggs,  Nov.  g, 
1892,  to  the  status  of  the  Committee  of  Prosecution. 

Dr.  Briggs — I  rise  at  this  stage  to  make  a  prelim- 
inary objection  which  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  make 
here  in  order  to  maintain  my  rights  of  objecting  to  this 
committee  in  the  status  that  it  claims  at  the  present 
time.  I  cannot  permit  them  to  act  as  a  prosecuting 
committee  until  I  challenge  their  right  so  to  act,  and 
have  the  Presbytery  pass  upon  my  preliminary  objec- 
tions. 

I  do  not  mean  to  take  up  much  time  at  present — no 
more  than  is  absolutely  necessary  to  bring  the  case  in  a 
proper  form  before  the  house.  I  was  in  hopes  that  the 
Synod  of  New  York  would  decide  their  status  at  its  last 
meeting  by  entertaining  the  complaint  filed  by  114  min- 
isters and  elders  of  the  Presbytery ;  but  the  Synod  did 
not  take  action  upon  the  complaint,  and  virtually  re- 
turned the  matter  to  the  Presbytery  for  reconsideration. 
The  responsibility  is  thrown  upon  me,  therefore,  as  an 
original  party  to  again  bring  this  question  before  the 
Presbytery.     I  cannot  shirk  it. 


2  PRELIMINARY  OBJECTION  OF  PROF.   BRIGGS 

It  is  far  from  my  intention  to  put  any  obstruction  in 
the  way  of  a  course  of  procedure  prescribed  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  it  need  take 
but  a  very  short  time  to  determine  this  preliminary  ob- 
jection. I  would  indeed  prefer  to  do  no  more  at  this 
stage  than  to  state  that  I  have  several  objections  to  the 
status  of  the  Committee  and  to  ask  the  privilege  of  pre- 
senting them  immediately  after  the  Presbytery  has 
passed  upon  the  sufificiency  of  the  eharges  and  specifica- 
tions again  to  be  submitted  by  order  of  the  General  As- 
sembly; but  it  is  necessary  in  order  that  I  may  do  this 
that  the  Moderator  should  decide  that  I  may  then  have 
that  right  and  that  the  prosecution  should  consent  to 
this  order ;  otherwise  I  am  obliged  to  file  these  objec- 
tions at  once.     I  wait  for  a  decision  on  this  question. 

The  MODF.RATOR — The  Moderator's  decision  is,  that 
this  question  had  better  be  decided  now  rather  than  later. 

Dr.  Briggs — In  order  to  save  the  time  of  the  house 
and  in  order  to  save,  so  far  as  possible,  any  argument  on 
this  question,  I  have  prepared  a  very  brief  statement  of 
the  history  of  the  procedure  leading  up  to  our  present 
situation,  which  I  will  read  and  then  I  will  read  the  ob- 
jections. I  hope  it  will  not  take  more  than  seven  or 
eight  minutes. 

Let  me  briefly  review  the  history  of  the  case  leading 
up  to  the  present  situation.  The  Committee  appointed 
by  the  Presbytery  May  12,  1891,  "  to  arrange  and  prepare 
the  necessary  proceedings  appropriate  in  the  case  of  Dr. 
Briggs,"  presented  charges  and  specifications  against  me 
at  the  meeting  of  Presbytery,  October  5,  1891.  These 
were  served  upon  me  on  that  date,  and  I  was  cited  to 
appear  and  plead  to  these  charges  and  specifications  on 
November  4,  1891.  On  that  day  I  filed  objections  to 
the  sufificiency  of  the  charges  in  form  and  legal  effect. 


TO  THE  STATUS  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  3 

The  Presbytery,  after  hearing  these  objections,  dis- 
missed the  case  against  me.  A  motion  was  then  made 
to  discharge  the  Committee.  This  motion  was  ruled 
out  of  order  by  the  Moderator  on  the  ground  that  the 
Presbytery  had  previously  decided  that  this  Committee 
was  a  Prosecuting  Committee,  an  original  party,  and 
virtually  and  practically  independent  of  the  Presbytery. 
The  Presbytery  had  made  this  decision  on  appeal  from 
the  decision  of  this  question  by  the  Moderator,  and  had 
sustained  the  Moderator  by  a  vote  of  64  to  57.  Notice 
of  complaint  was  given  by  Dr.  Brown  and  others,  which 
complaint  was  subsequently,  and  before  it  was  presented 
to  the  Synod,  signed  by  114  ministers  and  elders  of  the 
Presbytery,  dy  of  whom  had  voted  on  the  motion  to  sus- 
tain the  Moderator ;  showing  that  the  Moderator  had 
been  sustained  by  a  mistake  and  misapprehension  on  the 
part  of  at  least  ten  voters.  This  complaint,  according 
to  the  law  of  complaints,  ought  to  have  acted  as  a  stay 
to  all  further  proceeding  until  the  Synod  had  deter- 
mined the  complaint.  The  Committee,  whose  status 
was  thus  questioned,  gave  notice  of  appeal  to  Synod, 
but  subsequently  changed  their  appeal  to  the  General 
Assembly.  This  appeal  was  prosecuted  before  the  last 
General  Assembly  at  Portland,  Oregon,  the  Committee 
disregarding  the  law  of  the  stay  of  complaints,  and  pre- 
ferring to  bring  their  ex  parte  statement  before  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  when  by  the  law  of  the  Church  the  com- 
plainants could  only  appear  before  the  Synod. 

The  law  of  the  Church  makes  the  defendant  the  ap- 
pellee in  the  case.  I  was  therefore  obliged  to  appear 
before  the  General  Assembly  and  resist  the  entertain- 
ment of  the  appeal,  and  then,  after  the  appeal  had  been 
entertained,  to  oppose  the  sustaining  of  the  appeal.  This 
was  a  difficult  task  for  the  appellee,  for  the  reason  that 


4  PRELIMINARY  OBJECTION  OF  PROF.   BRIGGS 

the  Presbytery  did  not  do  what  he  requested  them  to 
do  in  the  objections  which  he  filed,  which  was  simply 
and  alone  to  declare  the  charges  and  specifications  in- 
suflficient  in  form  and  legal  effect,  but  the  Presbytery 
buried  the  original  motion  to  dismiss  the  case  on 
the  ground  of  his  paper  under  a  number  of  irrel- 
evant amendments  which  were  not  in  his  interest  and 
which  weakened  in  no  inconsiderable  degree  the  value 
of  the  dismissal  in  the  estimation  of  the  defendant ; 
nevertheless  compelled  by  law  to  defend  this  action,  I 
did  it  to  the  best  of  my  ability. 

I  was  also  embarrassed  in  my  defense  of  the  action  of 
the  Presbytery  by  the  fact  that  the  Presbytery  had 
officially  recognized  the  Committee  as  a  Committee  of 
Prosecution  by  sustaining  the  Moderator  in  his  decision 
of  that  status,  and  that  the  complaint,  signed  by  a  ma- 
jority of  the  Presbytery,  was  to  come  before  the  Synod, 
requesting  the  Synod  to  reverse  the  mistaken  action  of 
the  Presbytery.  In  view  of  all  these  circumstances,  I 
refrained  from  raising  the  question  of  the  status  of  the 
Committee  before  the  General  Assembly,  and  I,  again  and 
again,  expressly  reserved  that  question  for  consideration 
by  the  Synod.  This  question,  therefore,  did  not  come 
before  the  Assembly  for  action.  The  General  Assembly, 
therefore,  took  no  action  relating  to  the  status  of  the 
Committee,  but,  after  recognizing  their  appeal  to  be  in 
order,  first  decided  to  entertain  the  appeal,  and  then  to 
sustain  the  appeal  in  all  its  specifications  of  error.  The 
General  Assembly  then  reversed  the  action  of  the  Pres- 
bytery in  dismissing  the  case.  This  is  their  judgment : 
"The  case  is  remanded  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York 
for  a  new  trial,  with  directions  to  proceed  to  pass  upon 
and  determine  the  sufficiency  of  the  charges  and  speci- 
fications," as  has  been  read  to  you  a  moment  ago. 


TO  THE  STATUS  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  k 

o 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  in  October  last  this 
day  was  appointed  for  the  new  trial.  In  the  meanwhile 
the  Synod  had  taken  no  action  on  the  complaint.  They 
found  the  complaint  to  be  in  proper  form,  but  resolved 
that  it  was  inexpedient  to  take  action  at  the  present 
time,  for  the  following  reasons  :  "  First,  the  case,  through 
the  action  of  the  General  Assembly  and  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York,  is  again  before  the  Presbytery,  and  the 
complainants  may  there  have  their  remedy  in  their 
own  hands.  Second,  in  case  the  remedy  there  be  found 
insufficient,  they  will  afterwards  have  opportunity  by 
appeal  or  complaint  to  bring  the  case  again  before  the 
Synod." 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  by  the  direction  of  the 
General  Assembly  the  Presbytery  enters  upon  a  new 
trial  with  two  specific  directions :  to  do  what  the  appel- 
lants charged  the  Presbytery  with  not  doing  at  the  pre- 
vious trial,  first,  to  decide  on  the  question  of  sufficiency, 
and  second,  to  permit  amendment  if  the  interests  of 
justice  require  it. 

The  Committee  also  appear  before  you  in  a  status 
differing  materially  from  their  status  when  they  preferred 
the  charges  in  October,  1891.  They  now  claim  to  be  a 
Committee  of  Prosecution,  to  be  an  original  party,  and 
to  be  independent  of  this  Presbytery;  and  yet  they  are 
confronted  with  the  advice  of  the  Synod  to  the  com- 
plainants that  they  should  again  test  the  status  of  the 
Committee  in  this  Presbytery,  in  order  that,  if  the  com- 
plainants still  remain  in  the  majority,  the  Committee 
may  be  discharged,  as  was  originally  proposed,  or  if  they 
should  be  in  the  minority,  they  may  bring  their  matters 
by  appeal  or  complaint  before  the  Synod  at  the  next 
meeting. 

These,  then,  ?re  my  objections.     I  do  hereby  submit 


Q  PRELIMINARY  OBJECTION  OF  PROF.  BRIGGS 

to  the  Presbytery  the  following  objections  to  the  pro- 
cedure : 

First.  A  Committee  originally  appointed  "  to  arrange 
and  prepare  the  necessary  proceedings  appropriate  in 
the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs  "  appears  before  you  claiming  to 
be  a  Committee  of  Prosecution,  and  they  are  recognized 
as  such  by  the  Moderator's  giving  them  the  floor  to  act 
in  that  capacity.  But  their  right  so  to  act  is  legally 
questioned  by  complaint  to  the  Synod  of  New  York,  and 
it  has  not  yet  been  lawfully  determined  by  the  Synod. 

Second.  This  Committee  appeared  before  the  last  Gen- 
eral Assembly  as  an  original  party,  and  acted  as  such  by 
presenting  an  appeal  against  the  judgment  of  the  Pres- 
bytery in  dismissing  the  case  against  me.  They  now 
appear  before  you  as  an  original  party  successful  in  their 
appeal.  Their  right  to  act  as  an  original  party  is  ques- 
tioned in  the  said  complaint,  and  it  has  not  yet  been 
lawfully  determined  by  the  Synod. 

Third.  This  Committee  claim  to  represent  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and 
to  be  independent  of  this  Presbytery  which  appointed 
them.  They  acted  independently  of  the  Presbytery  by 
appealing  to  the  General  Assembly  against  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Presbytery  in  dismissing  the  case  against 
me.  They  now  appear  before  you  with  a  reversal  of  the 
judgment  of  the  Presbytery  which  they  have  obtained. 
Their  right  to  act  independently  of  the  Presbytery  is 
questioned  in  the  said  complaint,  and  it  has  not  yet  been 
lawfully  determined  by  the  Synod. 

Fourth.  This  Committee  appear  before  you  having 
acted,  as  is  claimed,  in  violation  of  the  constitution  of 
the  Church,  which  provides  that  when  a  complaint  has 
been  signed  by  more  than  one-third  of  those  present 
and  voting  in  the  Presbytery,  it  acts  as  a  stay  to  further 


ACTION  OF  PRESBrXERY  OF  NEW  YORK        7 

proceedings.  The  above-mentioned  complaint,  signed 
by  a  majority  of  the  voters,  has  been  filed  with  the 
Synod  of  New  York,  and  has  been  found  in  order  by 
the  Synod  of  New  York,  and  is  now  in  possession  of  the 
Synod  of  New  York.  Until  the  questions  raised  in  said 
complaint  have  been  determined,  this  Committee  can- 
not legally  take  any  action  in  the  matters  complained 
of.  They  cannot  act  as  a  Prosecuting  Committee,  or  as 
an  original  party,  or  as  independent  of  the  Presbytery ; 
and  you  cannot  allow  them  so  to  act  without  a  violation 
of  the  law  of  complaint  embedded  in  the  constitution  of 
the  Church. 

Inasmuch  as  the  Synod  of  New  York  suggested  that 
the  complainants,  being  according  to  the  number  of 
signers  in  the  complaint,  a  majority  of  the  Presbytery, 
may  have  the  remedy  in  their  own  hands,  the  Presby- 
tery are  respectfully  requested  to  apply  the  said  rem- 
edy and,  in  accordance  with  the  provision  of  the  Book 
of  Discipline,  to  determine  these  preliminary  objections 
which  I  hereby  file.  C.  A.  Briggs. 

B.   The  action  of  the  Presbytery  on  this  objection. 

Dr.  Briggs — I  do  not  wish  to  argue  this  case,  and  I 
hope  the  prosecution  will  allow  it  to  go  before  the 
Presbytery  to  be  determined  without  argument.  Of 
course,  if  the  other  side  insist  upon  argument  I  reserve 
my  right  of  reply. 

[At  this  point  Elder  John  J.  McCook  rose  and  argued 
elaborately  against  Dr.  Briggs,  pp.  27-44  of  Stenogra- 
pher's Report.] 

Dr.  Robert  R.  Booth — Mr.  Moderator,  I  rise  to  a 
point  of  order. 

Dr.  Briggs — [Interposing]  I  have  a  right  to  reply  to 
Col.  McCook. 


8        ACTION  OF  PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK 

The  Moderator — Let  us  hear  what  Dr.  Booth's 
question  of  order  is. 

Dr.  Booth — This  Presbytery  is  assembled  in  obedience 
to  the  direction  of  the  General  Assembly,  with  a  specific 
duty  to  perform.  The  General  Assembly  has  decided, 
as  we  have  heard,  concerning  the  points  that  have  been 
presented  to  us  just  now.  We  are  therefore  at  this 
time  obligated  by  the  laws  of  order  to  proceed  with  the 
duty  laid  upon  us  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  of  the  United  States  of  America — to  pro- 
ceed with  the  trial.  That  stands  in  the  records  of  the 
General  Assembly  based  upon  a  decision  of  all  these 
questions  that  have  been  raised  in  the  protest  of  Dr. 
Briggs.  Now,  sir,  I  ask  for  the  decision  of  the  Moder- 
ator as  to  whether  anything  is  in  order  at  this  time  ex- 
cept to  proceed  in  compliance  with  the  direction  of  the 
General  Assembly  with  the  trial  of  this  case. 

[Questions  as  to  the  roll  interrupted  the  discussion  for 
a  few  moments.] 

The  Moderator — Now,  as  to  Dr.  Booth's  point  of 
order  which  he  raised 

Dr.  Briggs — But  before  that  point  of  order  is  de- 
cided, Mr.  Moderator,  I  claim  that  I  have  a  right  as  a 
party  to  reply. 

The  Moderator — You  raised  your  objections  and 
Col.  McCook  answered  them. 

Dr.  Charles  S.  Robinson — Dr.  Briggs  has  been  out 
of  order.     That  is  Dr.  Booth's  point. 

Dr.  Briggs — I  simply  made  my  objections,  and  then 
an  argument  was  presented  on  the  other  side,  and  I  have 
a  right  to  answer  that  argument.  According  to  the 
Book  I  have  a  right  to  be  heard,  and  I  claim  my  right. 

Dr.  J.  Ford  Sutton — A  question  of  order  is  proper 
at  any  time,  Mr.  Moderator. 


ACTION  OF  PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK  9 

The  Moderator — The  point  of  order  is  raised  by 
Dr.  Booth  that  the  question  of  raising  these  objections 
by  Dr.  Briggs  at  this  time  is  out  of  order  in  view  of  the 
specific  action  of  the  General  Assembly  directing  us  now 
to  take  up  this  matter  and  act  upon  the  sufficiency  of 
the  charges  and  specifications  in  form  and  legal  effect. 
The  Moderator  decides  that  that  point  of  order  is  well 
taken. 

Dr.  Francis  Brown — May  I  call  the  attention  of  the 
Moderator  to  the  Book  of  Discipline,  which  requires 
that  "  questions  as  to  order  or  evidence,  arising  in  the 
course  of  a  trial,  shall,  after  the  parties  have  had  an 
opportunity  to  be  heard,  be  decided  by  the  Moderator." 

The  Moderator — And  the  Moderator  understands 
that  the  parties  have  now  been  heard. 

Dr.  Brown — The  parties  have  not  been  heard  on  that 
point  of  order. 

Dr.  Briggs — I  claim  that  one  party  has  been  heard 
in  argument  against  my  objections,  and  I  claim  that  I 
have  a  right  as  a  party  to  be  heard  in  argument  in  behalf 
of  my  objections,  and  to  meet  the  argument  of  the  other 
side  before  any  further  decision  is  made  by  the  Moder- 
ator. 

Dr.  Robinson — I  do  not  think  it  is  understood  clearly 
what  Dr.  Booth's  point  of  order  was.  His  point  of  order 
was  this :  that  this  discussion  concerning  who  are  the 
parties  in  this  case  has  been  decided  by  the  General 
Assembly,  and  that  it  is  out  of  order  for  us  to  do  any- 
thing but  obey  the  Supreme  Court  of  our  Church.  That 
is  what  we  are  talking  about  in  this  whole  discussion,  as 
we  say  this  is  out  of  order  from  Dr.  Briggs'  beginning 
to  Dr.  Briggs'  continuance.  That  is  the  question  of 
order  which  we  suppose  the  Moderator  has  now  decided. 

The  Moderator — In  view  of  the  reminder  of   Dr. 


10  ACTION  OF  PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK 

Brown,  the  Moderator  would  recall  his  decision  in  order 
that  the  parties  may  be  heard  under  the  rule.  It  seems 
to  be  clear  as  a  question  of  order  that  is  now  raised  by 
Dr.  Booth.  Section  27  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  pro- 
vides as  follows :  "  Questions  as  to  order  or  evidence, 
arising  in  the  course  of  a  trial,  shall,  after  the  parties 
have  had  an  opportunity  to  be  heard,  be  decided  by  the 
Moderator,  subject  to  appeal." 

Dr.  Robinson — Will  the  Moderator  state  who  are  the 
parties  to  be  heard  ? 

The  Moderator — The  parties  are  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  as  represented 
by  this  Prosecuting  Committee  on  the  one  side,  and  Dr. 
Charles  A.  Briggs  as  the  defendant,  on  the  other  side. 

Dr.  Sutton — I  submit  that  there  is  no  question  before 
the  house  but  the  point  of  order.  It  is  the  point  of 
the  order  in  which  those  brethren  are  to  be  heard,  and 
nothing  more.  If  Dr.  Briggs  has  any  remarks  to  make 
on  the  point  of  order  he  should  be  heard  ;  but  that  is  all. 

Dr.  Booth — Will  the  Moderator  rule  according  to 
that  statement  and  keep  us  to  that  law  ?  It  is  the  ques- 
tion of  the  point  of  order  on  which  the  parties  are  to  be 
heard — not  the  subject-matter  that  has  occasioned  the 
presenting  of  the  point  of  order. 

Dr.  Briggs — I  wish  to  enter  my  solemn  protest  against 
the  refusal  of  the  Moderator  to  hear  me  as  a  party  in 
response  to  the  argument  of  this  so-called  Committee  of 
Prosecution  against  my  objection,  when  I  expressly  re- 
served the  right  to  argue  the  case  provided  they  argued 
it ;  and  I  shall  include  that  in  any  complaint  or  appeal 
that  I  may  hereafter  be  obliged  to  make  to  the  Synod  of 
New  York. 

The  Moderator— The  Moderator  did  not  intend  to 
prevent  you  from  being  heard  in  respect  to  the  matter. 


ACTION  OF  PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK       H 

Dr.  Briggs— But  I  understand  that  a  decision  on  this 
point  of  order  does  rule  me  from  the  floor. 

The  Moderator— Yes,  if  the  house  so  decides. 

Dr.  Briggs — Now,  I  shall  speak  to  this  point  of  order. 
I  claim  that  according  to  Section  27  I  not  only  have  the 
right  as  a  party  to  file  objections  to  the  charges  and  spec- 
ifications as  to  their  sufficiency,  but  I  also  have  the 
right  to  make  any  other  preliminary  objections.  I  think 
you  will  see  that  clearly,  that  I  have  the  right  to  make 
any  other  preliminary  objections.  Now,  these  I  have 
brought  specifically  before  you  as  preliminary  objections 
which  I,  as  a  party,  have  a  right  to  make.  These  objec- 
tions are  germane  to  the  case.  It  is  necessary  for  me  to 
make  them,  as  I  endeavored  to  show  you.  It  is  claimed 
that  the  General  Assembly  has  decided  these  questions. 
I  deny  it.  I  claim  that  the  Synod  of  New  York  has 
forced  me,  whether  I  will  or  not,  as  an  upright  and 
honorable  man,  to  raise  this  question  before  you,  and  I 
am  simply  doing  my  duty  in  raising  the  question  before 
you,  and  I  wish  to  have  no  argument  upon  it,  as  I  said 
at  the  beginning,  but  simply  a  vote  in  order  that  either 
one  way  or  the  other  it  may  be  decided  and  be  made  a 
ground  of  appeal  to  the  higher  court,  and  you  cannot 
prevent  that.  If  you  refuse  to  hear  me  I  appeal  against 
your  decision  not  to  hear  me,  and  bring  the  whole  case 
before  them  in  that  way. 

Dr.  Booth — Having  raised  the  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Moderator,  am  I  not  the  party  on  the  other  side  ? 

The  Moderator— No,  I  think  not. 

Dr.  Booth — On  questions  of  order  the  parties  are  to 
be  heard,  and  as  I  raise  the  question  of  order  I  am  one  of 
the  parties. 

Dr.  John  J.  Stevenson — The  defendant  read  a  dis- 
cussion of  his  objections,  and  after  reading  it  he  summed 


12  ACTION  OF  PRESBYTERY  OF   Ni£W  YORK 

it  up  in  a  final  paper,  and  so  he  gave  his  objections  after 
the  discussion.  And  now  one  point  with  reference  to 
his  statement.  This  Committee  takes  issue  at  once, 
finally  and  absolutely,  with  respect  to  the  inference  and 
value  of  that  complaint 

Dr.  Brown — [Interposing]  I  rise  to  a  question  of 
order. 

Dr.  Stevenson— I  have  the  floor,  sir. 

Dr.  Brown — Mr.  Moderator,  I  desire  to  inquire  if  this 
gentleman  is  speaking  to  the  point  of  order  before  us? 

The  Moderator — The  question  of  order  is  before  us. 

Dr.  Brown — I  submit  that  brother  Stevenson  is  not 
addressing  himself  to  that. 

Dr.  Stevenson — I  shall  endeavor  to  hold  myself 
strictly  to  that  question,  sir.  The  defendant  stated  that 
he  was  compelled  to  take  this  position  and  present  the 
preliminary  objections  by  the  action  of  the  Synod  of 
New  York.  The  Synod  of  New  York  took  no  action 
whatever.  It  could  take  no  action  whatever  with  respect 
to  this  case  in  any  shape  or  form,  because  this  is  a  judi- 
cial case.  There  was  nothing  before  it,  except  what  pur- 
ported to  be  a  complaint  in  a  form  non-judicial.  This 
case  was  never  before  the  Synod  in  any  form  whatever. 
Consequently,  the  argument  offered  by  the  defendant  on 
this  point  is  without  value  in  any  way.  These  prelimi- 
nary objections  should  have  come  in  when  he  stated  that 
he  offered  no  objections  to  the  authority  of  the  Pres- 
bytery. He  offered  only  his  objections  to  the  form  and 
legal  effect  of  the  charges.     That  is  all  he  offered. 

The  Moderator — The  Moderator  would  prefer  in- 
stead of  seeming  to  limit  Dr.  Briggs,  or  to  in  any  way 
lessen  the  liberty  in  the  matter,  to  have  him  heard  to  a 
reasonable  extent  in  setting  forth  the  matter.  He  wishes 
that  distinctly  understood.     It  would  seem  that  a  full 


ACTION  OF   PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK  13 

explanation  had  been  had  by  Dr.  Briggs,  and  then  that 
was  met  by  the  rejoinder  on  the  other  side  ;  and,  if  the 
house  would  allow  that,  the  Moderator  would  be  very 
glad,  rather  than  to  insist  upon  a  decision  that  might 
seem  to  exclude  him. 

Dr.  Briggs — Did  I  understand  that  I  am  to  speak, 
or  not? 

Dr.  Robinson— What  does  Dr.  Briggs  want  to  do  ? 
I  believe  that  there  is  not  a  man  in  this  whole  building 
that  does  not  want  to  hear  everything  he  has  to  say. 
Everybody's  heart  is  in  earnest  in  saying  that.  If  I  voice 
anything,  I  insist  upon  that  statement.  But  is  there 
never  to  be  any  end  of  the  argument  whether  or  not  that 
Committee  is  a  party?  Having  had  it  decided  at  the 
top  of  our  whole  church  that  the  Committee  was  a  party, 
it  seemed  to  us  that  it  was  not  necessary  for  him  to  dis- 
cuss that  particular  again  and  again  and  again.  I  would 
be  glad  for  one  to  hear  Dr.  Briggs  on  any  point  that  he 
chooses  to  speak  upon,  but  we  are  getting  tired  of  the 
over-discussion  of  that  which  the  General  Assembly  has 
decided. 

The  Moderator — Then,  sir,  the  Moderator's  de- 
cision is  this :  That  in  view  of  the  action  taken  by  the 
General  Assembly  upon  the  recommendation  of  the 
Judicial  Committee,  this  whole  subject  having  been 
fully  discussed  in  that  Committee 

Dr.  Briggs — [Interrupting]  Mr.  Moderator,  will  you 
allow  me  one  word?  That  has  been  argued  by  the 
other  side,  and  I  have  had  no  opportunity  of  meeting 
that,  and  you  are  deciding  on  the  basis  of  their  argument. 

The  Moderator — The  Moderator  must  make  a  de- 
cision, and  he  is  simply  trying  to  do  so.  This  subject 
having  been  fully  discussed  in  the  Judicial  Committee, 
and  having  been  embodied  in  their  report  recommending 


14       ACTION  OF  PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK 

the  entertainment  of  the  appeal  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly, also  having  been  embodied  in  the  minute  which  was 
presented  by  the  General  Assembly  as  its  finding  in  this 
case,  sending  this  case  back  to  the  Presbytery,  and  also 
finding  voice  in  the  protest  on  the  part  of  the  brethren 
who  objected  to  the  proceeding,  and  who  embodied 
these  principles  as  having  been  recognized  by  the  action 
of  the  Assembly  ;  and  now,  the  matter  coming  before  us 
in  this  single  way,  that  we  are  to  pass  upon  and  deter- 
mine the  sufficiency  of  the  charges  and  specifications  in 
form  and  legal  effect,  my  decision  is  that  this  is  now  out 
of  order.  The  Moderator's  decision  is,  of  course,  sub- 
ject to  appeal. 

Dr.  Brown — I  beg  very  respectfully  to  appeal  from 
the  decision  of  the  Moderator  on  this  question.  It  is 
not  my  desire  or  the  desire  of  any  of  those  who  sympa- 
thize with  Dr.  Briggs,  I  am  sure,  to  interpose  any  hin- 
drance to  our  getting  at  the  matter  in  hand  directly,  but 
it  does  seem  unjust,  if  I  may  be  allowed  to  say  so,  that 
action  in  other  courts  should  by  any  interpretation  be 
allowed  to  interfere  with  what  seems  to  be  the  obvious 
right  to  have  this  fundamental  question  considered  and 
decided.  I  beg  to  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the 
Moderator. 

Rev.  Charles  R.  Gii-Lett— I  second  that. 

The  Moderator — Appeal  is  made  from  the  Moder- 
ator's  decision,  that  is,  those  who  sustain  the  appeal 
will  vote  against  this  motion,  and  those  not  in  favor  of 
the  appeal  will  sustain  the  Moderator's  decision. 

Dr.  Booth — No,  you  are  putting  it  the  wrong  way. 

Dr.  Robinson— The  question  should  be:  Shall  the 
Moderator  be  sustained  ? 

The  Moderator— Strictly  speaking,  it  is :  Shall  the 
appeal  be  sustained? 


ACTION  OF  PRESBTTERr  OF  NEW  YORK       15 

Dr.  Booth— Shall  the  appeal  be  sustained  ?  That  is, 
shall  Dr.  Brown's  appeal  be  sustained  by  the  vote  of 
this  house?  Those  who  desire  to  do  so  will  vote  in  the 
affirmative.  Those  who  desire  to  sustain  the  Moderator 
will  vote  in  the  negative. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke — I  am  reluctant  as  anybody,  either  to 
hear  this  question  discussed,  or  to  add  one  word 

Elder  W.  R.  Worrall — [Interrupting]  If  you  will 
look  in  your  Book  of  Discipline,  Mr.  Moderator,  it  pro- 
vides that  no  debate  shall  be  allowed  on  an  appeal  from 
the  decision  of  the  Moderator. 

The  Moderator— I  would  say  that  if  Dr.  Van  Dyke 
wishes  to  debate  the  question,  it  is  not  debatable. 

Elder  Worrall— Mr.  Moderator,  I  ask  for  a  decision 
on  my  point.  There  is  no  debate  allowed  on  this 
question. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke — Yes,  sir,  there  is.  An  appeal  which 
involves  a  constitutional  question  is  debatable,  and 
this  involves  a  constitutional  question. 

The  Moderator — The  Moderator  must  beg  leave  to 
differ  with  you,  sir.  It  is  to  be  decided  by  the  Moder- 
ator, subject  to  appeal. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke — I  am  strongly  of  the  impression,  sir, 
that  an  appeal  which  involves  a  constitutional  question 
is  debatable.  I  wish  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
we  are  really  passing  upon  this  great  constitutional 
question  at  this  time  in  this  vote. 

Elder  WORRALL — I  call  the  speaker  to  order. 

The  Moderator— The  Presbytery  will  understand 
from  what  Dr.  Van  Dyke  has  said  that  we  are  virtually 
deciding  what  is  called  a  constitutional  question.  The 
Moderator  is  obliged  to  make  a  decision  under  the  point 
of  order,  and  he  would  not  be  understood  as  assuming 
any  authority  in  the  matter,  but  only  as  acting  as  ac- 


1Q  ACTION  OF  PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK 

cording  to  the  rules  of  the  book  as  far  as  they  can  be 
understood.  Now,  the  appeal  is  from  the  decision  of 
the  Moderator. 

Dr.  Robinson — What  is  that  constitutional  question  ? 

[Cries  of  Question  !  Question  !] 

The  Moderator — One  moment,  brethren.  The  con- 
stitutional question  is  as  to  the  status  of  the  Committee. 

Dr.  Robinson — No,  sir,  I  beg  your  pardon.  I  sup- 
posed the  Moderator  had  the  wrong  idea  of  that,  and 
that  is  the  reason  I  arose.  The  question  that  was  put 
to  the  Moderator  was  whether,  when  the  Supreme  Court 
of  our  Church  had  decided  it,  a  further  discussion  of  it 
was  becoming  and  in  order  here  in  this  Presbytery. 
That  is  the  question. 

[Calls  were  again  made  for  the  question.] 

Brethren  need  not  call  upon  me  to  stop,  or  call  for 
the  question.  I  want  to  know  what  the  constitutional 
question  is,  and  that  is  whether,  when  the  General  As- 
sembly has  decided  the  question,  we  have  any  reason 
further  to  debate  who  the  parties  to  it  are.  That  is  the 
question  from  which  appeal  is  taken. 

The  Moderator— The  Moderator  understood  that 
the  constitutional  question,  in  the  first  place,  applied  to 
the  status  of  the  Committee,  and  then  that  Dr.  Van 
Dyke's  point  involved  a  constitutional  question  as  to 
our  right  to  discuss  the  appeal. 

Dr.  Brown — Am  I  right  in  understanding  that  the 
question  as  to  whether  the  Assembly  has  decided  the 
matter  in  such  a  way  as  to  preclude  discussion  here  is 
really  involved  in  the  ruling  of  the  Moderator? 

The  Moderator— It  is  involved  so  far  that  the  high- 
est court  of  the  Church,  having  taken  that  action,  that 
carries  this  question  with  it ;  and  now,  in  view  of  all 
that,  we  have  the  case  brought  before  us  with  that  ac- 


ACTION  OF  PRESBYTERr  OF  NEW  YORK  17 

tion  back  of  it,  that  therefore  it  is  not  in  order  that  the 
question  should  be  raised  here. 

Dr.  Brown— It  is  the  ruling  of  the  Moderator,  in 
effect,  that  the  Assembly  has  in  such  a  way  decided  that 
it  is  not  in  order  here  to  raise  the  question.  It  is,  then, 
the  understanding  of  the  Moderator  that  the  effect  of 
an  appeal  from  that  decision  is  to  bring  out  a  difference 
of  opinion,  if  there  be  such  in  the  Presbytery,  as  to 
whether  the  action  of  the  Assembly  does  carry  that 
effect  with  it  ?   That  is  my  understanding  of  the  appeal. 

The  Moderator — Yes,  sir.  Of  course  it  is  a  ques- 
tion as  to  the  mind  of  the  body,  and  the  Moderator  is 
very  glad  to  have  the  whole  body  express  its  opinion  in 
that  way  and  to  share  the  responsibility  of  it. 

Dr.  Brown— Those,  then,  that  find  themselves  com- 
pelled to  vote  against  the  Moderator,  are  to  be  under- 
stood not  as  voting  against  the  General  Assembly  ? 

Elder  Worrall — I  shall  insist  upon  my  point  of 
order,  that  this  debate  is  out  of  order. 

Dr.  Brown— My  desire  is  simply  to  get  an  under- 
standing of  how  we  are  to  vote. 

Elder  WORRALL — I  insist  upon  my  point  of  order. 

The  Moderator — Give  Dr.  Brown  an  opportunity 
to  make  his  statement.  It  .is  not  polite  to  interrupt 
him. 

Dr.  Brown— I  wish  to  know  whether  I  am  right  in 
supposing  that  those  who  vote  to  sustain  the  Moder- 
ator  

Dr.  Sutton— [Interrupting]  It  matters  not  what  Dr. 
Brown  understands  or  supposes  about  the  Moderator 
one  way  or  another.  The  Moderator  has  decided  a 
plain  open  question,  and  Dr.  Brown  or  anybody  else 
may  place  such  construction  upon  it  afterwards  as  they 
choose  as  a  basis  of  complaint  and  of  appeal ;  but  the 


18       ACTION  OF  PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK 

Moderator  has  decided,  and  therefore  the  question  be- 
fore us  is  :  Shall  the  Moderator  be  sustained  or  not  ? 

Dr.  Brown — But  the  Moderator  had  already  ex- 
pressed himself  as  thinking  it  wise  that  the  house  should 
fully  understand  what  was  involved  in  the  ruling,  and 
that  is  all  I  wished  to  bring  up ;  and  I  think  in  voting 
against  the  Moderator — and  we  will  all  do  it  with  re- 
gret, I  am  sure — that  we  are  simply  expressing  our 
opinion  that  the  Assembly  has  not  decided  in  the  way 
indicated. 

[Cries  of  Question!  Question!] 

The  Moderator— Brethren,  the  appeal  is  before  you. 

Dr.  Briggs — As  it  may  be  necessary  to  appeal  to  the 
higher  courts,  I  would  like  to  have  the  decision  of  the 
Moderator  read  before  action  is  taken. 

The  Moderator — Very  well. 

Dr.  Henry  M.  Field— Dr.  Parkhurst  and  myself  do 
not  comprehend  what  the  question  is.  We  had  an  in- 
stance once  before,  you  remember,  when  those  who  voted 
to  sustain  the  Moderator  did  not  know  what  it  was  they 
were  voting  on. 

Elder  WoRRALL— Let  the  stenographer  read  the  de- 
cision of  the  Moderator  from  his  notes. 

The  Moderator— We  want  it  perfectly  clear  in  re- 
gard to  the  matter,  and  we  want  to  know  just  what  the 
points  are,  and  then  we  can  act  intelligently.  I  have 
made  a  decision,  and  I  will  call  upon  the  stenographer 
to  read  it  so  as  to  have  it  clear  in  the  minds  of  all. 

[The  stenographer  then  read  from  his  notes  as 
follows]  : 

"  That  in  view  of  the  action  taken  by  the  General  As- 
sembly upon  the  recommendation  of  the  Judicial  Com- 
mittee, this  whole  subject  having  been  fully  discussed 
in  that  Committee,  and  having  been  embodied  in  their 


ACTION  OF  PRESBYTERY  OF  ISEW  YORK  19 

report  recommending  the  entertainment  of  the  appeal 
to  the  General  Assembly,  also  having  been  embodied  in 
the  minute  which  was  presented  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly as  its  finding  in  this  case,  sending  this  case  back  to 
the  Presbytery,  and  also  finding  voice  in  the  protest  on 
the  part  of  the  brethren  who  objected  to  the  proceeding 
and  who  embodied  these  principles  as  having  been  rec- 
ognized by  the  action  of  the  Assembly ;  and  now,  the 
matter  coming  before  us  in  this  single  way,  that  we  are 
to  pass  upon  and  determine  as  to  sufificiency  of  the 
charges  and  specifications  in  form  and  legal  effect,  my 
decision  is  that  this  is  now  out  of  order." 

The  Moderator — The  question  is  on  the  appeal 
from  that  decision  of  the  Moderator. 

Dr.  Marvin  R.  Vincent— Will  the  Chair  state  how 
we  shall  express  our  vote  ?  I  move  that  we  vote  in  this 
way — to  sustain  the  appeal,  or  not  to  sustain  it. 

The  Moderator — I  think  that  perhaps  the  better 
way  would  be  to  vote  to  sustain  the  decision  of  the 
Moderator,  or  not  to  sustain  it.  I  think  that  will  be 
clearer.  If  you  are  in  favor  of  the  decision  of  the  Mod- 
erator you  will  vote  against  the  appeal. 

Dr.  Robinson — An  appeal  is  a  motion.  An  appeal 
was  taken  from  the  decision  of  the  Moderator,  and  it 
was  seconded.  Now,  those  that  favor  it  will  be  against 
the  decision  of  the  Moderator. 

Dr.  Birch — There  have  been  so  many  interruptions 
that  I  would  ask  the  Moderator  to  state  his  decision  over 
again  without  interruption,  before  we  take  this  vote. 

The  Moderator— The  decision  of  the  Moderator  is 
this 

Dr.  Briggs — [Interposing]  Are  we  going  to  stand  on 
the  previous  decision,  or  on  the  one  you  are  going  to 
make  now  ? 


20       ACTION  OF  PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK 

The  Moderator — I  will  try  to  make  the  same  one 
over  again,  sir,  and  then  we  will  have  to  let  one  or  the 
other  stand  as  my  decision.  The  decision  of  the  Mod- 
erator is  this  :  That  this  question  as  to  the  status  of  the 
Prosecuting  Committee,  having  been  met  and  fully  dis- 
cussed in  the  Judicial  Committee,  and  having  been  em- 
bodied in  its  report  finding  the  appeal  in  order  and  rec- 
ommending the  entertainment  of  the  appeal,  and  that 
report  having  been  adopted  by  the  Assembly,  and  the 
appeal  having  thus  been  sustained,  and  the  minute 
which  was  brought  in  as  a  finding  of  the  action  of  the 
General  Assembly  in  the  case,  and  also  the  protest  that 
was  made  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly  by  those  who 
opposed  its  action,  which  protest  was  based  upon  the 
recognition  of  the  principles  that  are  involved  as  to  the 
status  of  the  Committee,  its  power  and  province — that 
protest  embodying  these  things — I  decide  that  the  mat- 
ter now  coming  back  to  us  upon  the  recommendation 
of  the  General  Assembly,  that  we  shall  now  pass  upon 
and  determine  the  sufficiency  of  the  charges  and  speci- 
fications in  form  and  in  legal  effect,  that  thing  singly 
being  before  us,  this  is  out  of  order.* 


*  In  the  Minutes  of  Presbytery,  the  Moderator's  ruling  is  given  as  follows : 
"  That  the  raising  of  the  question  of  the  status  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee 
and  of  its  right  to  appear  and  continue  the  conduct  of  this  case  is  not  now  in  or- 
der, for  these  reasons : 

"  ist.  That  this  whole  question  was  fully  discussed  and  decided  by  the  Judicial 
Committee  of  the  General  Assembly. 

"  2nd.  That  the  recognition  of  the  status  of  the  Committee  and  its  powers  as 
defined  in  the  appeal  were  embodied  in  the  Judicial  Committee's  report  recom- 
mending the  entertainment  of  the  appeal. 

"  3rd.  That  in  the  minute  of  the  General  Assembly  giving  its  finding  in  the 
case,  the  Committee's  status  is  clearly  recognized. 

"4th.  That  the  protest  recorded  in  the  Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly  by 
those  objecting  to  its  action  was  based  on  the  fact  that  its  action  in  entertaining 
the  appeal  gave  the  Committee  the  standing  and  powers  claimed  for  it ;  and 

"  Lastly.  That  the  order  sending  the  case  again  to  this  Presbytery,  requiring 


COMPLAINT  TO  THE  SYNOD  OF  NEW  YORK      21 

Dr.  Albert  B.  King — Dr.  Brown  appealed  from  your 
decision.     Will  the  vote  be  upon  the  appeal? 

The  Moderator — Those  in  favor  of  the  appeal  are 
against  the  Moderator,  and  those  who  are  not  in  favor 
of  the  appeal  are  in  favor  of  the  Moderator's  decision. 
Those  in  favor  of  sustaining  this  appeal  will  say  aye ; 
opposed,  no. 

[A  viva  voce  vote  was  then  taken.] 

The  Moderator — The  Moderator  decides  that  the 
noes  have  it. 

Dr.  Brown— I  call  for  a  division. 

The  Moderator — A  division  is  called  for.  Those  in 
favor  of  sustaining  the  appeal  and  against  the  Moder- 
ator's decision  will  rise. 

[58  arose.] 

Those  against  sustaining  the  appeal  and  in  favor  of 
the  Moderator's  decision  will  now  rise. 

[73  arose.] 

The  Moderator — The  decision  of  the  Moderator  is 
sustained  by  a  vote  of  73  to  58. 

Dr.  Briggs — I  beg  to  give  notice  of  appeal  and  com- 
plaint to  the  Synod  against  this  decision  of  the  Pres- 
bytery. 

C.  Complaint  to  the  Synod  of  New  York,  against  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  for  Action  taken  November 
gth,  1892. 

New  York,  November  i8,  1892. 

Complaint  is  hereby  made  before  the  Synod  of  New 
York,  by  the  persons  whose  names  are  appended  below, 
being  all  of  them  persons  subject  and  submitting  to  the 

us  to  proceed  to  pass  upon  and  determine  the  sufficiency  of  the  Charges  and  Speci- 
fications, as  to  form  and  legal  effect,  and  to  proceed  with  the  trial— this  being 
the  single  point  before  us  to  be  acted  upon,  therefore  the  Moderator's  decision  is 
that  this  question  is  out  of  order." 


22  COMPLAINT  TO  THE  SYNOD  OF  NEW  YORK 

jurisdiction  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  in  accord- 
ance with  Sections  83  and  86  of  the  Revised  Book  of 
DiscipHne,  against  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York,  November  9th,  1 892,  in  sustaining  by  a  vote  of  73  to 
58  the  ruling  of  the  Moderator,  as  follows: 

"  That  the  raising  of  the  question  of  the  status  of  the 
Prosecuting  Committee  [in  the  case  of  the  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.D.],  and  of  its  right  to  appear  and  continue 
the  conduct  of  this  case,  is  not  now  in  order." 

Against  this  action,  complaint  is  made  for  the  follow- 
ing reasons : 

1.  The  case  having  been  remanded  to  the  Presbytery 
by  the  General  Assembly  "  for  a  new  trial "  [Minutes, 
1892,  p.  152],  it  was  competent  for  the  defendant,  ac- 
cording to  Section  22  of  the  Revised  Book  of  Discipline, 
to  file  "  any  substantial  objection  affecting  the  order  or 
regularity  of  the  proceeding,"  and  "the  raising  of  the 
question  of  the  status  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee  " 
was  such  an  objection.  To  rule  this  objection  out  of 
order  deprived  the  defendant  of  his  right,  under  the  ac- 
tion of  the  Assembly. 

2.  The  Synod  of  New  York  in  effect  authorized  the 
raising  of  this  objection,  when,  in  declining,  October  21, 
1892,  to  act  on  a  complaint  dealing  with  the  same  ques- 
tion, it  gave  as  a  reason  for  its  decision  the  following: 
"  First,  The  case,  through  the  action  of  the  General 
Assembly  and  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  is  again 
before  the  Presbytery,  and  the  complainants  may  there 
have  their  remedy  in  their  own  hands." 

3.  The  Moderator  had  been  requested  by  the  defend- 
ant to  appoint  a  time  for  the  offering  of  the  said  objec- 
tion, and  had  appointed  the  time  at  which  the  objection 
was  actually  presented  and  filed,  and  at  which  he  sub- 


COMPLAINT  TO  THE  SYNOD  OF  NEW  YORK      23 

sequently  declared  it  to  be  out  of  order ;  and  no  excep- 
tion had  been  taken  by  any  member  of  the  Presbytery 
to  this  appointment. 

4.  The  defendant  submitted  his  objection  without 
argument,  reserving  the  right  to  argue,  if  argument 
should  be  made  by  the  opposing  party.  Such  argument 
was  in  fact  made,  and  the  defendant  rose  to  reply,  but 
was  refused  the  floor  and  deprived  of  the  opportunity 
of  defending  his  objection  by  the  Moderator's  decision 
on  the  said  question  of  order. 

5.  The  Moderator,  by  his  ruling,  in  effect  passed  upon 
the  objection  of  the  defendant,  instead  of  giving  the 
judicatory  the  opportunity  to  decide,  according  to  sec- 
tion 22  of  the  Revised  Book  of  Discipline. 

6.  The  Moderator's  reasons  for  his  decision  were  in- 
sufficient, as  follows : 

(a).  The  statement  "  1st,  That  this  whole  question  was 
fully  discussed  and  decided  by  the  Judicial  Committee 
of  the  General  Assembly  "  is  an  insufficient  reason,  be- 
cause no  decision  of  a  Judicial  Committee  can  as  such 
be  of  authority  in  the  church,  and  binding  on  a  Pres- 
bytery. 

(d).  The  statement  *'  2nd,  That  the  recognition  of  the 
status  of  the  Committee  and  its  powers  as  defined  in  the 
appeal  were  embodied  in  the  Judicial  Committee's  report 
recommending  the  entertainment  of  the  appeal  "  is  an  in. 
sufficient  reason,  because  it  does  not  appear  that  the 
Assembly  adopted  that  part  of  the  report  of  its  Judicial 
Committee  which  contained  "  the  recognition  of  the 
status  of  the  Committee  and  its  powers  as  defined  in  the 
appeal." 

{c).  The  statement  "  3rd,  That  in  the  minute  of  the 
General  Assembly  giving  its  finding  in  the  case,  the  Com- 
mittee's status  is  clearly  recognized,"  is  an  insufficient 


24  COMPLAINT  TO  THE  SYNOD  OF  NEW  YORK 

reason,  because  the  Committee's  status  is  recognized  in 
this  finding  only  by  indirection,  it  is  assumed  and  not 
decided.  The  Committee  appeared  before  the  Assembly 
with  the  Presbytery's  action  of  November  4,  1891,  behind 
them,  and  were  received  as,  prima  facie,  in  good  stand- 
ing, the  question  as  to  their  standing  not  being  before 
the  Assembly,  and  the  Assembly  not  being  legally 
competent  to  consider  and  pass  upon  it. 

{d).  The  statement  "  4th,  That  the  Protest  recorded  in 
the  Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly  by  those  objecting 
to  its  action  was  based  on  the  fact  that  its  action  in  enter- 
taining the  appeal  gave  the  Committee  the  standing  and 
powers  claimed  for  it  "  is  an  insufficient  reason,  because 
the  Presbytery  was  in  no  way  bound  by  the  act  or 
opinion  of  individual  members  of  the  Assembly. 

(<f).  The  statement  "  Lastly,  That  the  order  sending  the 
case  again  to  this  Presbytery,  requiring  us  to  proceed  to 
pass  upon  and  determine  the  sufficiency  of  the  charges 
and  specifications,  as  to  form  and  legal  effect,  and  to 
proceed  with  the  trial — this  being  the  single  point  before 
us  to  be  acted  upon  "  is  an  insufficient  reason,  because 
it  misstates  the  action  of  the  Assembly  and  also  draws  a 
false  inference  from  the  action  of  the  Assembly. 

(i).  It  misstates  the  action  of  the  Assembly,  which 
was  as  follows  :  "  The  General  Assembly  having  on  the 
28th  day  of  May,  1892,  duly  sustained  all  of  the  specifica- 
tions of  error  alleged  and  set  forth  in  the  appeal  and  spec- 
ifications in  this  case,  it  is  now,  May  30th,  1892,  ordered 
that  the  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  en- 
tered November  4th,  1891,  dismissing  the  case  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
against  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  be,  and  the  same 
is  hereby  reversed,  and  the  case  -s  remanded  to  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  York  for  a  new  trial,  with  directions  to 


COMPLAINT  TO  THE  SYNOD  OF  NEW   TORK  25 

said  Presbytery  to  proceed  to  pass  upon  and  determine 
the  sufficiency  of  the  charges  and  specifications  in  form 
and  legal  effect,  and  to  permit  the  prosecuting  committee 
to  amend  the  specifications  or  charges,  not  changing  the 
general  nature  of  the  same,  if,  in  the  furtherance  of 
justice,  it  be  necessary  to  amend,  so  that  the  case  may  be 
brought  to  issue  and  tried  on  the  merits  thereof  as 
speedily  as  may  be  practicable." 

(2).  It  also  draws  a  false  inference  from  the  action  of 
the  Assembly,  viz.,  that  the  single  point  to  be  acted 
upon  was  the  sufficiency  of  the  charges  presented 
October  5th,  1891,  in  form  and  legal  effect,  whereas  the 
evident  purpose  of  the  Assembly  was  not  to  prescribe 
the  exact  order  of  procedure  in  the  Presbytery,  but  to 
secure  a  definite  decision  of  the  Presbytery  on  the  suffi- 
ciency of  the  charges  and  specifications.  In  fact,  the 
Presbytery  did  not,  after  the  Moderator's  ruling,  follow 
the  exact  order  of  procedure  named  above,  and  did  not 
pass  upon  the  charges  and  specifications  aforesaid,  but 
permitted  the  Committee  at  once  to  bring  in  amended 
charges,  and  in  so  doing  were  led  and  encouraged  by  the 
Moderator  himself,  who  said :  "  It  would  save  the  time 
of  the  House  if  we  do  not  stand  upon  the  literal  reading 
of  this  mandate."     [Stenographer's  Report,  pp.  6;^,  64]. 

7.  The  points  of  objection  which  were  filed  by  the 
defendant  and  the  consideration  of  which  was  ruled  out 
of  order,  were  in  fact  substantial  and  weighty  objections, 
as  follows : 

"(i).  A  Committee  originally  appointed  to  'arrange 
and  prepare  the  necessary  proceedings  appropriate  in  the 
case  of  Dr.  Briggs  '  appears  before  you  claiming  to  be  a 
committee  of  prosecution,  and  they  are  recognized  as 
such  by  the  Moderator's  giving  them  the  floor  to  act  in 
that  capacity.     But  their  right  so  to  act  is  legally  ques- 


26      COMPLAINT  TO  THE  SYNOD  OF  NEW  YORK 

tioned  by  complaint  to  the  Synod  of  New  York,  and  it 
has  not  yet  been  lawfully  determined  by  the  Synod. 

"(2),  This  Committee  appeared  before  the  General 
Assembly  as  an  original  party,  and  acted  as  such  by 
presenting  an  appeal  against  the  judgment  of  the  Pres- 
bytery in  dismissing  the  case  against  me.  They  now 
appear  before  you  as  an  original  party  successful  in  their 
appeal.  Their  right  to  act  as  an  original  party  is  ques- 
tioned in  the  said  complaint,  and  it  has  not  yet  been 
lawfully  determined  by  the  Synod. 

"(3).  This  Committee  claim  to  represent  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  to 
be  independent  of  this  Presbytery  which  appointed 
them.  They  acted  independently  of  the  Presbytery  by 
appealing  to  the  General  Assembly  against  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Presbytery  in  dismissing  the  case  against 
me.  They  now  appear  before  you  with  a  reversal  of  tlie 
judgment  of  the  Presbytery  which  they  have  obtained. 
Their  right  to  act  independently  of  the  Presbytery  is 
questioned  in  the  said  complaint,  and  it  has  not  yet  been 
lawfully  determined  by  the  Synod. 

"  (4).  This  Committee  appear  before  you  having  acted, 
as  is  claimed,  in  violation  of  the  constitution  of  the 
Church,  which  provides  that  when  a  complaint  has  been 
signed  by  more  than  one-third  of  those  present  and 
voting  in  the  Presbytery  it  acts  as  a  stay  to  further  pro- 
ceedings. The  above  mentioned  complaint  signed  by  a 
majority  of  the  voters,  has  been  filed  with  the  Synod  of 
New  York,  and  is  now  in  the  possession  of  the  Synod. 
Until  the  questions  raised  in  said  Complaint  have  been  de- 
termined, this  Committee  cannot  legally  take  any  action 
in  the  matters  complained  of.  They  cannot  act  as  a  prose- 
cuting committee,  or  as  an  original  party,  or  as  inde- 
pendent of  the  Presbytery  ;  and  you  cannot  allow  them 


COMPLAINT  TO  THE  SYNOD  OF  NEW   YORK  27 

SO  to  act  without  a  violation  of  the  law  of  complaint 
embedded  in  the  constitution  of  the  Church." 

8.  The  Committee  had  in  fact  no  right  to  act  as  a 
committee  of  prosecution  under  Section  1 1  of  the  Revised 
Book  of  Discipline,  because  the  records  of  the  Presbytery- 
do  not  show  that  it  was  appointed  as  such. 

9.  The  Committee  had  in  fact  no  right  to  appear  as  an 
original  party,  because,  according  to  Section  10  of  the 
Revised  Book  of  Discipline,  "  When  the  prosecution  is 
initiated  by  a  judicatory  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  shall  be  the  prosecutor,  and 
an  original  party  ":  but  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  was  represented  in  the  house 
by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  itself,  and  not  by  a 
committee  of  the  Presbytery. 

10.  The  Committee  had  in  fact  no  right  to  act  inde- 
pendently of  the  Presbytery  by  appealing  to  the  General 
Assembly,  and  securing  a  reversal  of  the  decision  of  the 
Presbytery,  November  4,  1891,  dismissing  the  case 
against  Dr.  Briggs,  because  every  committee  appointed 
by  Presbytery  is  subject  to  the  control  of  Presbytery, 
otherwise  the  creature  is  greater  than  the  body  creating 
it,  the  sovereignty  of  Presbytery  over  its  members,  its 
committees  and  all  the  interests  committed  to  it  by  the 
laws  of  the  Church  is  seriously  impaired,  and  an  undue 
power  is  placed  in  the  hands  of  a  few  persons. 

11.  The  question  raised  as  a  point  of  order  and  de- 
cided by  the  Moderator  was  in  fact  one  of  law  and  juris- 
diction, and  as  such  its  decision  belonged  not  to  the 
Moderator,  but  to  the  judicatory  itself,  after  due  consid- 
eration. Hence  the  Moderator  had  no  right  to  make 
the  decision,  and  the  Presbytery  had  no  right  to  sustain 
him  on  appeal. 

For  these  reasons,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 


28  COMPLAINT  TO  THE  SYNOD  OF  NEW  YORK 

Synod  of  New  York  adopted  and  gave  the  following 
decision,  October  21,  1892,  viz.: 

"  In  the  matter  of  Judicial  Case  Number  3  the  com- 
mittee find  the  Complaint  to  be  in  order,  but  recommend 
that  it  is  inexpedient  to  take  action  at  the  present  time, 
for  the  following  reasons  : 

"  First.  The  case,  through  the  action  of  the  General 
Assembly  and  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  is  again 
before  the  Presbytery,  and  the  complainants  may  there 
have  their  remedy  in  their  own  hands. 

"  Second.  In  case  the  remedy  there  be  found  insufifi- 
cient,  they  will  afterward  have  opportunity,  by  appeal  or 
complaint  to  bring  the  case  again  before  Synod  "; — 
— and  of  the  further  fact,  that  the  defendant,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  above  decision,  respectfully  requested 
the  Presbytery  "  to  apply  the  said  remedy,  and  in  accord- 
ance with  the  provision  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  to 
determine  these  preliminary  objections,"  and  of  the  fur- 
ther fact,  that  ''the  remedy  there"  has  been  "found  in- 
sufificient,"  due  notice  of  complaint  having  been  given 
to  the  stated  clerk  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York, 
within  ten  days  after  the  action  complained  of,  accord- 
ing to  section  84  of  the  Revised  Book  of  Discipline, 
complaint  is  hereby  made  in  due  form  to  the  next  higher 
judicatory,  being  the  Synod  of  New  York,  against  the 
said  action  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  and  the 
Synod  is  most  respectfully  and  earnestly  requested  to 
entertain  this  Complaint,  and  to  take  therein  such  action 
as  shall  in  its  judgment  appear  wise  and  likely  to  pro- 
mote good  order,  justice,  and  the  peace,  purity,  and 
welfare  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

[Signed],  C.  A.  Brtggs, 

Francis  Brown, 
etc.,  etc. 
[Here  follows  a  list  of  names.] 


II. 

THE  AMENDED   CHARGES  AND   SPECIFICATIONS  SUB- 
MITTED  TO   THE   PRESBYTERY   NOVEMBER  9,   1 892. 

Charge  I. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
being  a  Minister  of  the  said  Church  and  a  member  of 
the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  the 
Reason  is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority  which  may  and 
does  savingly  enlighten  men,  even  such  men  as  reject 
the  Scriptures  as  the  authoritative  proclamation  of  the 
will  of  God,  and  reject  also  the  way  of  salvation  through 
the  mediation  and  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God  as  re- 
vealed therein  ;  which  is  contrary  to  the  essential  doctrine 
of  the  Holy  Scripture  and  of  the  Standards  of  the  said 
Church,  that  the  Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary,  and 
the  rule  of  faith  and  practice, 

SPECIFICA  TION  I. 

In  an  Inaugural  Address,  which  the  said  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  delivered  at  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary  in  the  city  of  New  York,  January  20th,  1891, 
on  the  occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward  Rob- 
inson Chair  of  Biblical  Theology,  which  Address  has 
been  published  and  extensively  circulated  with  the 
knowledge  and  approval  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.D.,  and  has  been  republished  by  him  in  a  second 

(29) 


30  AilE>-DED   CHAEGES   A>T)   SPECIFICATIOyS 

edition  with  a  preface  and  an  appendix,  there  occur  the 
following  sentences : 

Page  24,  lines  7-10  and  31-33  : 

"  Divine  authoritj-  is  the  only  authority'  to  which  man 
can  yield  implicit  obedience,  on  which  he  can  rest  in 

loving  certaint)'  and  build  with  joyous  confidence 

There  are  historically  three  great  fountains  of  divine 
authority — the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason.' 

Page  27,  lines  9-21: 

"  Martineau  could  not  find  divine  authority*  in  the 
Church  or  the  Bible,  but  he  did  find  God  enthroned  in 
his  own  soul.  There  are  those  who  would  refuse  these 
rationahsts  a  place  in  the  company  of  the  faithful.  But 
they  forget  that  the  essential  thing  is  to  find  God  and 
divine  certainty,  and  if  these  men  have  found  God  with- 
out the  mediation  of  Church  and  Bible,  Church  and 
Bible  are  means  and  not  ends ;  they  are  avenues  to  God, 
but  are  not  God.  We  regret  that  these  rationalists  de- 
preciate the  means  of  grace  so  essential  to  most  of  us,  but 
we  are  warned  lest  we  commit  a  similar  error,  and  de- 
preciate the  reason  and  the  Christian  consciousness." 

Inaugural  Address,  Appendix,  Second  Edition,  pages 
88,  89  : 

"  (c).  Unless  God's  authority-  is  discerned  in  the  forms 
of  the  Reason,  there  is  no  ground  upon  which  any  of 
the  heathen  could  ever  have  been  saved,  for  they  know 
nothing  of  Bible  or  Church.  If  they  are  not  savingly 
enlightened  by  the  Light  of  the  World  in  the  forms  of 
the  Reason  the  whole  heathen  world  is  lost  forever." 

SPECIFIC  A  TIO.V  II. 
In  an  Inaugural  Address,  which  the  said  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  dehvered  at  the  Union  Theological  Sem- 
inar>'  in  the  city  of  New  York,  Januar>'  20th,  1S91,  on 


CHAEGE  I.,  SPECIFICATION  U.  ^l 

the  occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward  Robinson 
Chair  of  Bibhcal  Theology,  which  Address  has  been  pub- 
lished and  extensively  circulated  with  the  knowledge 
and  approval  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
and  has  been  republished  by  him  in  a  second  edition 
with  a  preface  and  an  appendix,  there  occur  the  follow- 
ing sentences : 

Page  28,  lines  i  to  22 : 

"(3).  T/ie  Authority  of  Holy  Scripture. — We  have  ex- 
amined the  Church  and  the  Reason  as  seats  of  divine 
authority  in  an  introduction  to  our  theme,  the  Author- 
ity of  the  Scriptures,  because  they  open  our  eyes  to 
see  mistakes  that  are  common  to  the  three  departments. 
Protestant  Christianity  builds  its  faith  and  life  on  the 
divine  authority  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  and  too 
often  depreciates  the  Church  and  the  Reason.  Spur- 
geon  is  an  example  of  the  average  modern  Evangelical, 
who  holds  the  Protestant  position,  and  assails  the  Church 
and  Reason  in  the  interest  of  the  authority  of  Scripture. 
But  the  average  opinion  of  the  Christian  world  would 
not  assign  him  a  higher  place  in  the  kingdom  of  God 
than  Martineau  or  Newman.  May  we  not  conclude,  on 
the  whole,  that  these  three  representative  Christians  of 
our  time,  living  in  or  near  the  world's  metropolis,  have, 
each  in  his  way,  found  God  and  rested  on  divine  author- 
ity ?  May  we  not  learn  from  them  not  to  depreciate 
any  of  the  means  whereby  God  makes  himself  known  to 
men?  Men  are  influenced  by  their  temperaments  and 
environments  which  of  the  three  ways  of  access  to  God 
they  may  pursue." 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  Scripture : 
Isaiah   viii.  20;  Matt.  x.   32,    33;  Luke  xvi.   29-31; 
John  V.  39;  xiv.  6;   i  John  v.  10;   Gal.  1.9;   2  Timothy 
iii.  15-17;  2  Peter  i.  19-21. 


32  •    AMENDED   CHARGES  AND  SPECIFICATIONS 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  the  Standards : 
Confession  of  Faith,  Chap  L,  Sees.  I.,  V.,  VI.,  X. 
Larger  Catechism,  Q.  2,  3.     Shorter  Catechism,  Q.  2. 

Charge  II. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  be- 
ing a  Minister  of  the  said  Church  and  a  member  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  the  Church 
is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority  which,  apart  from  the 
Holy  Scripture,  may  and  does  savingly  enlighten  men  ; 
which  is  contrary  to  the  essential  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Scripture  and  of  the  Standards  of  the  said  Church,  that 
the  Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary  and  the  rule  of 
faith  and  practice. 

SPECIFICA  TION  I. 

In  an  Inaugural  Address,  which  the  said  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  delivered  at  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary  in  the  City  of  New  York,  January  20th,  1891, 
on  the  occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward  Robin- 
son Chair  of  Biblical  Theology,  which  Address  has  been 
published  and  extensively  circulated  with  the  knowl- 
edge and  approval  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
D.D.,  and  has  been  republished  by  him  in  a  second  edi- 
tion with  a  preface  and  an  appendix,  there  occur  the 
following  sentences : 

Page  24,  lines  7-10  and  31-33  : 

"  Divine  authority  is  the  only  authority  to  which  man 
can  yield  implicit  obedience,  on  which  he  can  rest  in  lov- 
ing certainty  and  build  with  joyous  confidence 

There  are  historically  three  great  fountains  of  divine 
authority— the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason." 


CHARGE  II.,  SPECIFICATION  II.  33 

Page  25,  lines  i  to  14  inclusive: 

"  (i.)  The  Authority  of  the  Church. — The  majority  of 
Christians  from  the  apostolic  age  have  found  God 
through  the  Church.  Martyrs  and  Saints,  Fathers  and 
Schoolmen,  the  profoundest  intellects,  the  saintliest 
lives,  have  had  this  experience.  Institutional  Chris- 
tianity has  been  to  them  the  presence-chamber  of  God. 
They  have  therein  and  thereby  entered  into  communion 
with  all  saints.  It  is  difficult  for  many  Protestants  to 
regard  this  experience  as  any  other  than  pious  illusion 
and  delusion.  But  what  shall  we  say  of  a  modern  like 
Newman,  who  could  not  reach  certainty,  striving  never 
so  hard,  through  the  Bible  or  the  Reason,  but  who  did 
find  divine  authority  in  the  institutions  of  the  Church?" 

SPECIF! CA  TION  II. 

In  an  Inaugural  Address,  which  the  said  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.D,,  delivered  at  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary  in  the  City  of  New  York,  January  20th,  1891, 
on  the  occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward  Robin- 
son Chair  of  Biblical  Theology,  which  Address  has  been 
published  and  extensively  circulated  with  the  knowledge 
and  approval  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
and  has  been  republished  by  him  in  a  second  edition 
with  a  preface  and  an  appendix,  there  occur  the  follow- 
ing sentences: 

Page  28,  lines  i  to  22,  are  : 

"(3.)  The  Authority  of  Holy  Scripture. — We  have 
examined  the  Church  and  the  Reason  as  seats  of  divine 
authority  in  an  introduction  to  our  theme,  the  Authority 
of  the  Scriptures,  because  they  open  our  eyes  to  see  mis- 
takes that  are  common  to  the  three  departments.  Prot- 
estant Christianity  builds  its  faith  and  life  on  the  divine 
authority  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  and  too  often  de- 


34  AMENDED  CHARGES  AND  SPECIFICATIO^JS 

predates  the  Church  and  the  Reason.  Spurgeon  is  an 
example  of  the  average  modern  Evangelical,  who  holds 
the  Protestant  position,  and  assails  the  Church  and 
Reason  in  the  interest  of  the  authority  of  Scripture. 
But  the  average  opinion  of  the  Christian  world  would 
not  assign  him  a  higher  place  in  the  kingdom  of  God 
than  Martineau  or  Newman.  May  we  not  conclude,  on 
the  whole,  that  these  three  representative  Christians  of 
our  time,  living  in  or  near  the  world's  metropolis,  have, 
each  in  his  way,  found  God  and  rested  on  divine  author- 
ity ?  May  we  not  learn  from  them  not  to  depreciate 
any  of  the  means  whereby  God  makes  himself  known  to 
men?  Men  are  influenced  by  their  temperaments  and 
environments  which  of  the  three  ways  of  access  to  God 
they  may  pursue." 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  the  Holy  Scrip- 
ture: 

Isaiah  viii.  20;  Matt.  x.  32,  33;  Luke  xvi.  29-31; 
John  V.  39;  xiv.  6;  i  John  v.  10  ;  Gal.  i.  9;  2  Timothy 
iii.  15-17;  2  Peter  i.  19-21. 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  the  Standards : 

Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  I.,  Sees.  I.,  V.,  VI.,  X. 

Larger  Catechism,  Q.  2,  3.     Shorter  Catechism,  Q.  2. 

Charge  III. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
being  a  Minister  of  the  said  Church  and  a  member  of 
the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  errors 
may  have  existed  in  the  original  text  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, as  it  came  from  its  authors,  which  is  contrary  to 
the  essential  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scripture  and 
in  the  Standards  of  the  said  Church,   that   the    Holy 


CHARGE  III.,  SPECIFICATION  35 

Scripture  is  the  Word  of  God  written,  immediately  in- 
spired, and  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

SPECIFIC  A  TION. 
In  an  Inaugural  Address,  which  the  said  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  delivered  at  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary 'in  the  City  of  New  York,  January  20th,  1891, 
on  the  occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward  Robin- 
son Chair  of  Biblical  Theology,  which  Address  has  been 
published  and  extensively  circulated  with  the  knowledge 
and  approval  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
and  has  been  republished  by  him  in  a  second  edition 
with  a  preface  and  an  appendix,  there  occur  the  follow- 
ing sentences,  beginning  with  Hne  4  of  page  35  : 

"  I  shall  venture  to  affirm  that,  so  far  as  I  can  see, 
there  are  errors  in  the  Scriptures  that  no  one  has  been 
able  to  explain  away  ;  and  the  theory  that  they  were 
not  in  the  original  text  is  sheer  assumption,  upon  which 
no  mind  can  rest  with  certainty.     If  such  errors  destroy 
the  authority  of  the  Bible,  it   is  already  destroyed  for 
historians.     Men  cannot  shut  their  eyes  to  truth  and 
fact.     But  on  what  authority  do  these  theologians  drive 
men  from  the  Bible  by  this  theory  of  inerrancy  ?     The 
Bible  itself  nowhere  makes  this  claim.     The  creeds  of 
the  Church  nowhere  sanction  it.    It  is  a  ghost  of  modern 
evangelicalism    to    frighten  children.      The   Bible    has 
maintained  its  authority  with  the  best  scholars  of  our 
time,  who  with  open  minds  have  been  willing  to  recog- 
nize any  error  that  might  be  pointed  out  by  Historical 
Criticism  ;  for  these  errors  are  all  in  the  circumstantials 
and  not  in  the  essentials  ;  they  are  in  the  human  setting, 
not  in  the  precious  jewel  itself;  they  are   found  in  that 
section  of  the  Bible  that  theologians  commonly  account 
for  from  the  providential  superintendence  of  the  mind 


36  AMENDED  CHARGES  AND  SPECIFICATIONS 

of  the  author,  as  distinguished  from  divine  revelation 
itself.  It  may  be  that  this  providential  superintendence 
gives  infallible  guidance  in  every  particular ;  and  it  may 
be  that  it  differs  but  little,  if  at  all,  from  the  providen- 
tial superintendence  of  the  fathers  and  schoolmen  and 
theologians  of  the  Christian  Church.  It  is  not  import- 
ant for  our  purpose  that  we  should  decide  this  question. 
If  we  should  abandon  the  whole  field  of  providential 
superintendence  so  far  as  inspiration  and  divine  author- 
ity are  concerned  and  limit  divine  inspiration  and  au- 
thority to  the  essential  contents  of  the  Bible,  to  its 
religion,  faith,  and  morals,  we  would  still  have  ample 
room  to  seek  divine  authority  where  alone  it  is  essential, 
or  even  important,  in  the  teaching  that  guides  our  de- 
votions, our  thinking,  and  our  conduct." 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  the  statements  of 
Scripture : 

Zech.  vii.  12;  Mark  vii.  13;  Romans  iii.  i,  2;  i  Cor. 
ii.  13  ;  Galatians  iii.  8;  2  Pet.  i.  20,  21  ;  2  Tim.  iii.  16. 

These  statements  are  contrary  to  the  Standards: 

Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  I.,  Sees.  I.,  II.,  IV.,  VIII. 

Charge  IV. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  being 
a  Minister  in  said  Church  and  a  member  of  the  Presby- 
tery of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  many  of  the  Old 
Testament  predictions  have  been  reversed  by  histor}', 
and  that  the  great  body  of  Messianic  prediction  has  not 
been  and  cannot  be  fulfilled,  which  is  contrary  to  the 
essential  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  and  of  the  Standards 
of  the  said  Church,  that  God  is  true,  omniscient,  and  un- 
changeable. 


CHARGE  IV.,  SPECIFICATION-CHARGE  V.  37 

SPECIFICA  TION. 

In  an  Inaugural  Address,  which  the  said  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  delivered  at  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary  in  the  City  of  New  York,  January  20th,  1891, 
on  the  occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward  Robin- 
son Chair  of  Biblical  Theology,  which  Address  has  been 
published  and  extensively  circulated  with  the  knowledge 
and  approval  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
and  has  been  republished  by  him  in  a  second  edition 
with  a  preface  and  an  appendix,  there  occur  the  follow- 
ing sentences : 

Page  38,  lines  20  to  30 : 

"  (6.)  Minute  Prediction. — Another  barrier  to  the  Bi- 
ble has  been  the  interpretation  put  upon  Predictive 
Prophecy,  making  it  a  sort  of  history  before  the  time,  and 
looking  anxiously  for  the  fulfillment  of  the  details  of 
Biblical  prediction.  Kuenen  has  shown  that  if  we  insist 
upon  the  fulfillment  of  the  details  of  the  predictive 
prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament,  many  of  these  predic 
tions  have  been  reversed  by  history ;  and  the  great  body 
of  the  Messianic  prediction  has  not  only  never  been  ful- 
filled, but  cannot  now  be  fulfilled,  for  the  reason  that  its 
own  time  has  passed  forever." 

This  declaration  is  contrary  to  Scripture : 

Matt.  V.  17,  18;  xxiv.  15;  Dan.  xii.  11;  Luke  xxiv. 
44;  Exodus  xxxiv.  6;  Hebrews  i v.  13;  James  i.  17. 

This  declaration  is  contrary  to  the  Standards: 

Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  I.,  Section  IV. ;  Chap.  II., 
Sees.  I.,  II. 

Shorter  Catechism,  Q.  4. 

Charge  V. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charies  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  being 


38  AMENDED  CHARGES  AND  SPECIFICATIONS 

a  Minister  of  the  said  Church  and  a  member  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  Moses  is  not  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  is  contrary  to  direct 
statements  of  Holy  Scripture  and  to  the  essential  doc- 
trines of  the  Standards  of  the  said  Church,  that  the  Holy 
Scripture  evidences  itself  to  be  the  word  of  God  by  the 
consent  of  all  the  parts,  and  that  the  infallible  rule  of 
interpretation  of  Scripture  is  the  Scripture  itself. 

SPECIFIC  A  TION, 

In  an  Inaugural  Address,  which  the  said  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  delivered  at  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary  in  the  City  of  New  York,  January  20th,  1891, 
on  the  occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward  Robin- 
son Chair  of  Biblical  Theology,  which  Address  has  been 
published  and  extensively  circulated  with  the  knowledge 
and  approval  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D,, 
and  has  been  republished  by  him  in  a  second  edition 
with  a  preface  and  an  appendix,  there  occurs  the  follow- 
ing sentence: 

Page  33,  lines  6-8  : 

"  It  may  be  regarded  as  the  certain  result  of  the 
science  of  the  Higher  Criticism  that  Moses  did  not  write 
the  Pentateuch." 

This  declaration  is  contrary  to  direct  statements  of 
Scripture : 

Ex.  xxiv.  4;  Num.  xxxiii.  2;  Deut.  v.  31  ;  xxxi.  9; 
Josh.  i.  7,  8  ;  i  Kings  ii.  3  ;  i  Chron,  vi.  49 ;  Ezra  iii.  2 ; 
vi.  18;  Neh.  i.  7;  Luke  xxiv.  27,  44;  John  v.  45-47; 
Acts  vii.  38  ;  XV.  21. 

This  declaration  is  contrary  to  the  Standards: 

Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  I.,  Sees.  V.  and  IX. 


CHARGE  VI.,  SPECIFICATION  3^ 

Charge  VI. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
being  a  Minister  of  the  said  Church  and  a  member  of 
the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  Isaiah 
is  not  the  author  of  half  of  the  book  that  bears  his 
name,  which  is  contrary  to  direct  statements  of  Holy 
Scripture  and  to  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  Stand- 
ards of  the  said  Church  that  the  Holy  Scripture  evidences 
itself  to  be  the  Word  of  God  by  the  consent  of  all  the 
parts,  and  that  the  infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of 
Scripture  is  the  Scripture  itself. 

SPECIFIC  A  TION. 

In  an  Inaugural  Address,  which  the  said  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  delivered  at  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary  in  the  City  of  New  York,  January  20th,  i89i,on 
the  occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward  Robinson 
Chair  of  Biblical  Theology,  which  Address  has  been 
published  and  extensively  circulated  with  the  knowledge 
and  approval  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
and  has  been  republished  by  him  in  a  second  edition  with 
a  preface  and  an  appendix,  there  occurs  the  following 
sentence: 

Page  33,  Hnes  14-15  ^ 

"  Isaiah  did  not  write  half  of  the  book  that  bears  his 
name." 

This  declaration  is  contrary  to  direct  statements  of 
Scripture: 

Matt.  iv.  14,  15  ;  xii.  17,  18;  Luke  iii.  4;  Acts  xxviii. 
25,  26;  John  xii.  38,  41  ;  Rom.  x.  16,  20. 

This  declaration  is  contrary  to  the  Standards : 

Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  I.,  Sees.  V.  and  IX. 


40  AMENDED  CHARGES  AND  SPECIFICATIONS 

Charge  VII. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charies  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  be- 
ing a  Minister  of  said  Church,  and  a  member  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  the  processes 
of  redemption  extend  to  the  world  to  come  in  the  case 
of  many  who  die  in  sin  ;  which  is  contrary  to  the  essen- 
tial doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Standards  of  the 
said  Church,  that  the  processes  of  redemption  are  lim- 
ited to  this  world. 

SPECIFICA  tion: 

In  an  Inaugural  Address,  which  the  said  Rev,  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  delivered  at  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary  in  the  City  of  New  York,  January  20th,  1 891,  on 
the  occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward  Robinson 
Chair  of  Biblical  Theology,  which  Address  has  been 
published  and  extensively  circulated  with  the  knowledge 
and  approval  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
and  has  been  republished  by  him  in  a  second  edition 
with  a  preface  and  an  appendix,  there  occur  the  follow- 
ing sentences : 

Page  50 :  ''  The  processes  of  redemption  ever  keep  the 
race  in  mind.  The  Bible  tells  us  of  a  race  origin,  a  race 
sin,  a  race  ideal,  a  race  Redeemer,  and  a  race  redemp- 
tion." 

Page  53:  "(r.)  Another  fault  of  Protestant  theology 
is  in  its  limitation  of  the  process  of  redemption  to  this 
world,  and  its  neglect  of  those  vast  periods  of  time 
which  have  elapsed  for  most  men  in  the  Middle  State 
between  death  and  the  resurrection." 

Pages  55  and  56:  "  The  Bible  does  not  teach  universal 
salvation,  but  it  does  teach  the  salvation  of  the  world, 


CHARGE  VII.,  SPECIFICATION  41 

of  the  race  of  man,  and  that  cannot  be  accomplished  by 
the  selection  of  a  limited  number  of  individuals  from 
the  mass.  The  holy  arm  that  worketh  salvation  does 
not  contract  its  hand  in  grasping  only  a  few  ;  it  stretches 
its  loving  fingers  so  as  to  comprehend  as  many  as  pos- 
sible— a  definite  number,  but  multitudes  that  no  one 
can  number.  The  salvation  of  the  world  can  only  mean 
the  world  as  a  whole,  compared  with  which  the  unre- 
deemed will  be  so  few  and  insignificant,  and  evidently 
beyond  the  reach  of  redemption  by  their  own  act  of  re- 
jecting it  and  hardening  themselves  against  it,  and  by 
descending  into  such  depths  of  demoniacal  depravity  in 
the  Middle  State,  that  they  will  vanish  from  the  sight 
of  the  redeemed  as  altogether  and  irredeemably  evil,  and 
never  more  disturb  the  harmonies  of  the  saints." 

Inaugural  Address,  Appendix,  2d  ed. 

Page  104.  This  raises  the  question  whether  any  man 
is  irretrievably  lost  ere  he  commits  this  unpardonable 
sin,  and  whether  those  who  do  not  commit  it  in  this  world 
ere  they  die  are,  by  the  mere  crisis  of  death,  brought 
into  an  unpardonable  state ;  and  whether,  when  Jesus 
said  that  this  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit  was  un- 
pardonable here  and  also  hereafter,  he  did  not  imply 
that  all  other  sins  might  be  pardoned  hereafter  as  well 
as  here. 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  direct  statements 
of  Scripture  : 

Prov.  xi.  7 ;  Luke  xvi.  22,  23  ;  John  viii.  24 ;  2  Cor. 
vi.  2  ;  Heb.  iv.  7. 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  the  Standards : 

Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  XXXIL,  Sec.  I. 

Larger  Catechism,  Q.  83,  86. 


42  AMENDED  CHARGES  AND  SPECIFICATIONS 

Charge  VIII. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
being  a  Minister  of  the  said  Church  and  a  member  of 
the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  Sancti- 
fication  is  not  complete  at  death,  which  is  contrary  to 
the  essential  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  and  of  the 
Standards  of  the  said  Church  that  the  souls  of  believers 
are  at  their  death  at  once  made  perfect  in  holiness. 

SPECIFIC  A  TION. 

In  an  Inaugural  Address,  which  the  said  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  delivered  at  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary  in  the  City  of  New  York,  January  20th,  1891, 
on  the  occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward  Robin- 
son Chair  of  Biblical  Theology,  which  Address  has  been 
published  and  extensively  circulated  with  the  knowledge 
and  approval  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
and  has  been  republished  by  him  in  a  second  edition 
with  a  preface  and  an  appendix,  there  occur  the  follow- 
ing sentences: 

Pages  53,  54,  55: 

"  (^,)  Another  fault  of  Protestant  theology  is  in  its 
limitation  of  the  process  of  redemption  to  this  world, 
and  its  neglect  of  those  vast  periods  of  time  which  have 
elapsed  for  most  men  in  the  Middle  State  between  death 
and  the  resurrection.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  is 
firmer  here,  though  it  smears  the  Biblical  doctrine  with 
not  a  few  hurtful  errors.  The  reaction  against  this 
limitation,  as  seen  in  the  theory  of  second  probation, 
is  not  surprising.  I  do  not  find  this  doctrine  in  the 
Bible,  but  I  do  find  in  the  Bible  the  doctrine  of  a  Middle 
State  of  conscious  higher  life  in  the  communion  with 


CHARGE  VIII.,   SPECIFICATION  4^ 

Chiist  and  the  multitude  of  the  departed  of  all  ages; 
and  of  the  necessity  of  entire  sanctification,  in  order 
that  the  work  of  redemption  may  be  completed.  There 
is  no  authority  in  the  Scriptures,  or  in  the  creeds  of 
Christendom,  for  the  doctrine  of  immediate  sanctification 
at  death.  The  only  sanctification  known  to  experience, 
to  Christian  orthodoxy,  and  to  the  Bible,  is  progressive 
sanctification.  Progressive  sanctification  after  death,  is 
the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  and  the  Church ;  and  it  is  of 
vast  importance  in  our  times  that  we  should  understand 
it,  and  live  in  accordance  with  it.  The  bugbear  of  a 
judgment  immediately  after  death,  and  the  illusion  of  a 
magical  transformation  in  the  dying  hour,  should  be 
banished  from  the  world.  They  are  conceits  derived 
from  the  Ethnic  religions,  and  without  basis  in  the  Bible 
or  Christian  experience  as  expressed  in  the  symbols  of 
the  Church.  The  former  makes  death  a  terror  to  the 
best  of  men,  the  latter  makes  human  life  and  experience 
of  no  effect ;  and  both  cut  the  nerves  of  Christian  activity 
and  striving  after  sanctification.  Renouncing  them  as 
hurtful,  unchristian  errors,  we  look  with  hope  and  joy 
for  the  continuation  of  the  processes  of  grace,  and  the 
wonders  of  redemption  in  the  company  of  the  blessed, 
to  which  the  faithful  are  all  hastening." 

Inaugural  Address,  Appendix,  2d  ed.,  pages  107,  108, 
"  Sanctification  has  two  sides — a  negative  and  a  positive 
— mortification  and  vivification ;  the  former  is  manward, 
the  latter  is  Godward.  Believers  who  enter  the  middle 
state,  enter  guiltless  ;  they  are  pardoned  and  justified  ; 
they  are  mantled  in  the  blood  and  righteousness  of 
Christ ;  and  nothing  will  be  able  to  separate  them  from 
His  love.  They  are  also  delivered  from  all  temptations 
such  as  spring  from  without,  from  the  world  and  the 
devil.     They  are  encircled  with  influences  for  good  such 


44  AMENDED  CHARGES  AND  SPECIFICATIONS 

as  they  have  never  enjoyed  before.  But  they  are  still 
the  same  persons,  with  all  the  gifts  and  graces,  and  also 
the  same  habits  of  mind,  disposition,  and  temper  they 
had  when  they  left  the  world.  Death  destroys  the 
body.  It  does  not  change  the  moral  and  religious  na- 
ture of  man.  It  is  unpsychological  and  unethical  to 
suppose  that  the  character  of  the  disembodied  spirit 
will  all  be  changed  in  the  moment  of  death.  It  is  the 
Manichean  heresy  to  hold  that  sin  belongs  to  the  physi- 
cal organization  and  is  laid  aside  with  the  body.  If  this 
were  so,  how  can  any  of  our  race  carry  their  evil  natures 
with  them  into  the  middle  state  and  incur  the  punish- 
ment of  their  sins?  The  eternal  punishment  of  a  man 
whose  evil  nature  has  been  stripped  from  him  by  death 
and  left  in  the  grave,  is  an  absurdity.  The  Plymouth 
Brethren  hold  that  there  are  two  natures  in  the  redeemed 
— the  old  man  and  the  new.  In  accordance  with  such  a 
theory,  the  old  man  might  be  cast  off  at  death.  But 
this  is  only  a  more  subtile  kind  of  Manicheism,  which 
has  ever  been  regarded  as  heretical.  Sin,  as  our  Saviour 
teaches,  has  its  source  in  the  heart — in  the  higher  and 
immortal  part  of  man.  It  is  the  work  of  sanctification 
to  overcome  sin  in  the  higher  nature." 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  Scripture : 

I  Cor.  XV.  51,  52;  Heb.  xii.  23. 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  the  Standards : 

Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  XXXII.,  Sec.  I. 

Larger  Catechism,  Q.  86.     Shorter  Catechism,  Q.  37. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  represented  by  the  undersigned  Prosecuting 
Committee,  offers  in  evidence  the  whole  of  the  said 
Inaugural  Address,  both  the  first  and  second  editions, 
and  all  the  works  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
D.D.,  quoted  therein,  in  so  far  as  they  bear  upon  this 


CHAEGE  VIII.,  SPECIFICATION  45 

case ;  also  the  appendix  to  the  second  edition  of  said 
Address,  and  all  the  works  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A, 
Briggs,  D.D.,  quoted  therein,  in  so  far  as  they  bear  upon 
this  case;  the  whole  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the 
whole  of  the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America. 

George  W.  F.  Birch,  D.D., 
Joseph  J.  Lampe,  D.D., 
Robert  F.  Sample,  D.D., 
John  J.  Stevenson, 
John  J.  McCook, 

Prosecuting  Committee. 


III. 

PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  AMENDED  CHARGES. 

Mr.   Moderator,  Ministers  and  Elders  of  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York: 

I  appear  before  you  in  compliance  with  your  citation 
dated  November  9th,  1892,  to  plead  to  the  Amended 
Charges  and  Specifications  placed  in  my  hapds  by  the 
Presbytery,  on  that  date.  The  Book  of  Discipline,  §  22, 
orders  that  "  At  the  meeting  at  which  the  citations  are 
returnable,  the  accused  shall  appear.  He  may  file  objec- 
tions to  the  regularity  of  the  organization,  or  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  judicatory,  or  to  the  sufficiency  of  the 
charges  and  specifications  in  form  or  in  legal  effect,  or 
any  other  substantial  objection  affecting  the  order  or 
regularity  of  the  proceeding,  on  which  objections  the 
parties  shall  be  heard."  It  is  necessary,  both  in  my  own 
interest  and  in  the  interest  of  Presbyterian  law  and  dis- 
cipline, to  avail  myself  of  this  right,  to  file  objections  to 
the  sufficiency  of  the  charges  and  specifications  in  "  form  " 
and  "  in  legal  effect  ";  and  to  make  several  "  substantial 
objections  affecting  the  order  and  regularity  of  the  pro- 
ceeding." 

It  is  far  from  my  purpose  to  raise  objections  of  a 
merely  technical  kind  or  to  stay  the  probation  of  charges 
which  are  approved  as  sufficient  or  specifications  that  are 
recognized  as  relevant  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York, 

(47) 


48      PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS  TO  AMENDED  CHARGES 

or  to  obstruct  the  course  of  procedure  prescribed  by  the 
General  Assembly.  My  desire  from  the  beginning  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  words  of  the  General  Assembly  in  the  act 
of  reversal,  "  that  the  case  may  be  brought  to  issue  and 
tried  on  the  merits  thereof  as  speedily  as  may  be  prac- 
ticable ";  but  the  order  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  re- 
quires that  all  these  preliminary  questions  shall  first  be 
decided  by  the  Presbytery,  before  I  can  plead  "  guilty  " 
or  "  not  guilty."  No  one  can  ask,  with  propriety,  that  I 
should  waive  this  right  of  preliminary  objection  in  order 
to  consent  to  a  trial  on  charges  and  specifications  that 
are  irrelevant ;  or  to  permit  procedure  which  is  irregular 
or  disorderly  and  which  can  only  complicate  the  trial  and 
prevent  a  definite  and  just  verdict.  However  much  I 
may  desire  a  trial  on  the  merits  of  the  case  and  a  speedy 
settlement  of  issues  which  are  necessarily  of  more  mo- 
ment to  me  than  they  can  be  to  any  one  else,  the  Book 
of  Discipline  makes  the  duty  of  the  defendant  very  plain. 
The  Presbytery  should  consider  that  I  am  not  only  the 
defendant  in  the  case,  but  I  am  also,  by  the  law  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  the  counsel  for  the  defendant,  and 
I  am  held  responsible  for  the  management  of  the  case  in 
all  matters  of  law  as  well  as  in  all  matters  of  doctrine. 
I  could  easily  waive  my  right  as  defendant,  but  I  cannot 
waive  my  duties  as  counsel.  My  choice  would  be,  rather 
to  be  condemned  while  insisting  upon  a  strict  compliance 
with  the  law  and  constitution  of  the  Church,  than  to  be 
acquitted  by  a  violation  of  the  constitution.  I  shall  not 
violate  the  constitution  in  order  to  secure  acquittal,  and 
I  cannot  consent  to  a  violation  of  the  constitution  on  the 
part  of  those  who  are  seeking  my  condemnation.  I  am 
looking  to  the  future,  and  not  merely  to  the  present. 
No  one  shall  be  able  to  say,  if  I  can  help  it,  that  I  allowed 
the  prosecution,  or  the  Presbytery  to  take  illegal  action. 


PRELIMINART  OBJECTIONS  TO  AMENDED  CHARGES      49 

or  to  establish  dangerous  precedents,  without  resistance 
and  protest.  I  cannot  yield  to  the  impatience  of  friends 
on  the  one  side,  or  the  crowding  of  enemies  on  the  other 
side. 

(I.)  I  object  that  the  Amended  Charges  put  in  my 
hands,  November  9th,  1892,  were  finally  disposed  of  by 
the  dismissal  of  the  case  against  me  on  November  4th, 
1891 ;  and  that  the  Presbytery  could  not  legally  cite  me 
a  second  time  to  answer  to  charges  which  they  had  dis- 
missed. Under  the  Old  Book  of  Discipline,  the  supreme 
court  of  the  Church  decided  that  where  a  case  arises 
without  an  individual  prosecutor,  there  is  but  one  original 
party  in  the  case,  namely,  the  defendant  (O.  S.  1859,  P- 
543).  There  was  no  individual  prosecutor  in  the  case 
against  me  which  you  dismissed  on  November  4th,  i89[. 
The  Presbytery  dismissed  the  case,  and,  the  sole  original 
party  under  the  Old  Book  of  Discipline  having  acquiesced, 
the  case  reached  its  end.  But  according  to  the  New 
Book  of  Discipline,  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  is  an  original  party,  and  that 
original  party  was  represented  by  the  Presbytery.  When 
therefore  the  Presbytery  dismissed  the  case,  and  both 
original  parties  acquiesced,  there  could  be  no  appeal. 
The  supreme  court  of  the  Church  has  decided  that 
members  of  a  court  trying  a  case  are  not  parties  in  the 
case  and  may  not  appeal.  (Digest,  p.  592.)  Therefore, 
any  members  of  the  court  who  may  have  acted  as  ap- 
pellants, have  acted  so  without  right,  and  any  action  taken 
on  their  appeal,  is  null  and  void.  If  any  member  of  the 
Presbytery  felt  aggrieved  by  the  dismissal  of  the  case, 
he  had  the  right  of  complaint  to  the  Synod  of  New 
York.  This  right  of  complaint  was  exercised,  and  a 
complaint  was  filed  with  the  Synod  against  the  action  of 
the  Presbytery  in  dismissing  the  case.     But  the  com- 


50      PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS  TO  AMENDED  CHARGES 

plainants  obtained  leave  from  the  Synod  to  withdraw 
their  complaint.  Therefore,  there  remains  no  further 
legal  challenge  to  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  in  dis- 
missing the  case,  and  its  action  should  be  regarded  as 
final.  Therefore,  the  court  has  no  legal  right  to  bring 
against  me  Amended  Charges,  which  Charges  have  al- 
ready been  finally  disposed  of. 

(II.)  I  object  to  the  order  and  regularity  of  the  pro- 
ceeding in  the  Presbytery,  in  any  and  every  action  taken 
against  me  since  the  dismissal  of  the  said  Charges  on 
November  4th,  1891. 

(i).  I  object  that  you  allowed  the  floor  to  a  committee 
to  bring  in  Amended  Charges,  which  committee  claimed 
to  be  a  committee  of  prosecution,  an  original  party,  and 
virtually  and  practically  independent  of  the  Presbytery ; 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  minutes  of  the  Pres- 
bytery show  that  no  such  committee  was  ever  appointed 
by  the  Presbytery. 

(2).  I  object  that  the  right  of  the  committee  to  act  in 
any  of  these  three  capacities  is  challenged  before  the 
Synod  of  New  York  by  a  complaint  signed  by  more  than 
one-third  of  the  Presbytery,  and  that  such  a  complaint 
acts  as  a  stay  to  all  further  proceeding  until  it  has  been 
determined  by  the  Synod,  and  that  therefore  your  action 
in  proceeding  to  reopen  the  case  against  me  with 
Amended  Charges  is  illegal  and  disorderly. 

(3).  I  object  to  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  in  sus- 
taining the  moderator  in  his  decision  that  my  objection 
to  the  status  of  the  committee  prior  to  the  presentation 
of  the  Amended  Charges  was  out  of  order,  and  in  per- 
mitting the  said  committee  to  argue  on  behalf  of  their 
claim  to  be  a  prosecuting  committee  and  an  original 
party,  and  in  refusing  to  allow  me  my  legal  right  of  ar- 
gument against  said  claim. 


PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS  TO  AMENDED  CHARGES      51 

Therefore  I  object  to  the  entire  procedure  of  the 
Presbytery  in  allowing  the  said  committee  to  present 
Amended  Charges ;  in  serving  these  Charges  upon  me, 
and  in  citing  me  to  appear  and  to  answer  to  them,  as  al- 
together unconstitutional  and  illegal. 

It  may  be  said  in  reply  to  these  objections  that  the 
General  Assembly,  by  its  action  at  Portland,  reversed 
the  action  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  in  the  dis- 
missal of  the  case,  and  remanded  it  to  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York  for  a  new  trial ;  and  that  therefore  the  Pres- 
bytery have  no  choice  in  the  matter :  they  must  submit 
to  the  action  of  the  General  Assembly  and  proceed  with 
the  case.  But  the  Presbytery  is  not  shut  up  to  this  pro- 
cedure. It  is  the  right  of  the  Presbytery  under  the  cir- 
cumstances to  send  up  a  memorial  to  the  next  General 
Assembly,  calling  their  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
Presbytery  cannot  proceed  without  a  violation  of  the 
constitution  of  the  Church  ;  and  asking  them  finally  to 
determine  all  the  preliminary  constitutional  questions 
before  any  further  action  shall  be  taken. 

But  it  is  not  for  me  to  advise  the  Presbytery  what 
course  they  should  pursue.  I  have  done  my  duty  in 
filing  these  objections.  I  have  only  this  further  word, 
that,  if  the  Presbytery  decide  against  me,  I  shall  proceed 
under  protest,  and  with  the  reservation  of  all  legal  rights 
of  securing  such  redress  in  the  higher  courts  as  may 
seem  necessary. 

(III.)  I  object  to  the  Amended  Charges,  that  they  do 
not  comply  with  the  law  respecting  amendment ;  and 
that  they  violate  the  express  directions  of  the  last  Gen- 
eral Assembly. 

The  law  of  amendment  of  charges  is  the  following : 

"  The  judicatory  ....  may  permit,  in  the  further- 
ance of  justice,  amendments  to  the  specifications   or 


52      PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS  TO  AMENDED  CHARGES 

charges,  not  changing  the  general  nature  of  the  same  " 

(22). 

The  direction  of  the  General  Assembly  was  that  the 
Presbytery  should  comply  with  this  law,  and  "  permit 
the  prosecuting  committee  to  amend  the  specifications 
or  charges,  not  changing  the  general  nature  of  the  same, 
if,  in  the  furtherance  of  justice,  it  be  necessary  to 
amend." 

I  object  that  the  "general  nature"  of  the  original 
charges  has  been  changed  in  these  Amended  Charges, 
and  that  it  is  not  "in  the  furtherance  of  justice  "  that 
these  prosecutors  should  be  allowed  to  amend  the 
Charges  as  they  have  done.  A  superficial  comparison 
of  the  two  sets  of  Charges  is  sufficient  to  show  that 
there  have  been  radical  and  thoroughgoing  changes. 
But  no  one  could  imagine  how  radical  and  extensive 
these  changes  are  without  a  careful  analysis  and  syn- 
thesis of  them.  The  defendant  was  ready  for  trial  on 
the  merits  of  the  case  on  November  9th,  but  it  has 
taken  him  the  full  time  allowed  him  to  revise  his  de- 
fence in  the  face  of  these  new  charges. 

A.   The  Cha?tges  in  the  Nature  of  the  Evidence. 

I  object  that  radical  changes  in  the  general  nature  of 
the  evidence  have  been  made  in  the  Amended  Charges, 
(i).  There  has  been  an  entire  overhauling  of  the  evi- 
dences from  Holy  Scripture.  In  the  original  Charges 
there  were  244  verses  of  Holy  Scripture  cited  under  the 
8  specifications.  One  hundred  and  eighty  of  these,  that 
is  about  three-fourths  of  them,  have  been  thrown  out, 
and  22  new  ones  have  been  introduced.  The  lines  of 
evidence  from  Holy  Scripture  needed  rectification.  I 
cannot  say  that  the  revision  has  been  too  radical.     It 


PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS  TO  AMENDED  CHARGES      53 

rather  lacks  in  thoroughness.  In  my  opinion  the  prose- 
cution would  have  acted  wisely  if  they  had  thrown  out 
all  of  these  texts  as  irrelevant,  and  had  given  up  the 
case  altogether.  I  call  the  attention  of  the  Presbytery 
to  these  great  changes  that  have  been  made  in  the  evi- 
dence, in  order  to  inquire  whether  it  is  in  the  interest  of 
justice  that  the  prosecution  should  play  so  fast  and  loose 
with  Holy  Scripture  ;  and  that  they  should  be  allowed 
to  compel  the  defendant  to  change  his  defence  to  suit 
so  capricious  a  selection  of  texts,  selected  originally  to 
prove  one  thing,  and  now  to  prove  a  number  of  very 
different  things. 

(2).  There  has  been  an  important  change  in  the  evi- 
dences from  the  Westminster  Standards,  both  by  omis- 
sions and  insertions,  which  has  compelled  me  to  entirely 
rearrange  my  lines  of  defence.  A  considerable  change 
has  been  made  in  the  use  of  the  several  sections  and 
clauses  of  chapter  I.  Chapter  XIV.  has  been  thrown 
out  and  chapter  II.  has  been  introduced,  with  new 
answers  to  questions  in  the  Catechism.  These  changes 
have  been  in  the  interest  of  certain  phases  of  doctrine 
which  have  been  cast  aside  and  of  certain  other  doc- 
trines which  have  been  introduced  into  the  Charges. 

(3).  There  has  also  been  a  considerable  amount  of 
change  in  citations  from  the  Inaugural  Address,  which 
has  raised  a  number  of  new  questions  of  doctrine.  Of 
the  19  passages  cited  in  the  original  Charges,  7  have 
been  omitted  from  the  Amended  Charges  and  6  new 
ones  have  been  inserted,  all  which  is  associated  with  cor- 
responding changes  in  the  formulation  of  the  Charges. 
All  these  changes  of  evidence  I  am  willing  to  overlook 
and  to  waive,  but  it  seems  proper  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  Presbytery  to  the  fickleness  of  the  prosecution 
and  to  their  apparent  feeling  of  insecurity  in  the  evi- 


54      PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS  TO  AMENDED  CHARGES 

dence  they  proffer.  I  cannot,  however,  refrain  from 
stating  my  indignation  that  this  committee  should  be 
permitted  to  waste  so  much  of  my  valuable  time  to  no 
purpose. 

(4).  I  object  to  the  relevancy  of  all  the  proofs  from 
Scripture,  Confession,  and  Catechisms.  Let  me  clearly 
set  before  you  what  kind  of  proof  is  necessary  in  order 
to  convict  me  of  heresy  under  Presbyterian  law.  It  is 
necessary  for  this  court,  if  you  would  make  a  just  ver- 
dict in  the  fear  of  God,  to  put  the  charges  and  specifi- 
cations in  definite  forms  of  major  and  minor  premises. 
The  major  premise  or  charge  must  represent  that  cer- 
tain teachings  are  irreconcilably  opposed  to  some  essen- 
tial doctrine  of  the  Westminster  Standards  and  Holy 
Scripture.  The  minor  premise  or  specification  must  set 
forth  some  statement  in  my  Inaugural  Address,  inter- 
preted in  a  sense  to  which  I  consent,  which  is  in  conflict 
with  said  doctrine. 

Proof  from  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession must  be  presented  under  the  charges  in  order  to 
prove  that  the  doctrines  asserted  in  the  charges  as  essen- 
tial doctrines  are  really  essential  doctrines.  Under  the 
specifications  the  prosecution  are  shut  up  to  proof  from 
my  Inaugural  that  I  teach  therein  the  erroneous  doc- 
trines specified.  An  examination  of  the  charges  and 
specifications  shows  that  they  do  no  such  thing.  The 
proofs  from  Scripture  and  from  Confession  are  all  under 
the  specifications  when  they  should  be  under  the 
charges.  I  therefore  challenge  the  relevancy  of  all  the 
proofs  offered  by  the  prosecution  from  the  Confession 
and  from  Holy  Scripture.  The  attention  of  the  Presby- 
tery is  called  to  this  fault.  It  may  be  corrected  by  a 
simple  transfer  of  these  proofs  from  the  specifications  to 
the  charges  if  the  Presbytery  so  desire. 


PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS  TO  AMENDED  CHARGES     55 

(5).  There  is  one  objection  to  the  evidence  offered  by 
the  prosecution  which  I  cannot  waive.  I  object  to  their 
offer  of  evidence  by  the  wholesale.  They  offer :  "  the 
whole  of  the  said  Inaugural  Address,  both  the  first  and 
second  editions,  and  all  the  works  of  the  said  Rev. 
Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  quoted  therein,  in  so  far  as 
they  bear  upon  this  case,  also  the  appendix  to  the  second 
edition  of  said  Address,  and  all  the  works  of  the  said 
Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  quoted  therein,  in  so  far 
as  they  bear  upon  this  case ;  the  whole  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, and  the  whole  of  the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America." 

This  offer  of  evidence  is  in  violation  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline,  which  rules  that : 

"  The  charge  shall  set  forth  the  alleged  offence ;  and 
the  specifications  shall  set  forth  the  facts  relied  upon  to 
sustain  the  charge.  Each  specification  shall  declare,  as 
far  as  possible,  the  time,  place,  and  circumstances,  and 
shall  be  accompanied  with  the  names  of  the  witnesses 
to  be  cited  for  their  support."     (i5-) 

The  facts  relied  upon  to  sustain  the  charge,  are  facts 
relating  to  the  Inaugural  Address  by  the  limitations 
imposed  upon  the  prosecution,  and  these  facts  should 
be  specified.  The  law  is  that  the  evidence  shall  be 
as  specific  as  possible ;  the  time,  place,  and  circum- 
stances of  the  offence,  and  the  names  of  witnesses  must 
be  given.  When  the  evidence  is  documentary  the  place 
in  the  document  must  be  given,  the  citations  must 
be  made.  It  is  unlawful  to  bring  in  evidence  the  whole 
of  the  Inaugural,  and  all  of  my  writings  referred  to 
therein  ;  the  prosecution  should  state  in  their  specifica- 
tions all  the  evidence  from  the  Inaugural  they  propose 
to  offer,  so  that  the  defendant  may  have  time  to  con- 
sider it  and  respond  to  it.     It  is  unlawful  to  offer  the 


56     PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS  TO  AMENDED  CHARGES 

whole  of  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  they  are  obliged  to  state 
what  texts  of  Scripture  they  offer  in  evidence  in  order 
that  I  may  test  them.  It  is  unlawful  to  offer  in  evi- 
dence the  whole  of  the  Westminster  Standards.  They 
are  obliged  to  state  in  their  charges  what  precise  doc- 
trines of  the  Standards  my  teachings  oppose,  and  they 
should  state  what  passages  of  the  Standards  they  offer 
in  proof  of  such  opposition.  The  Presbytery  should 
compel  the  prosecution  to  adhere  to  the  evidence  given 
under  the  specifications.  I  challenge  their  right  to  use 
any  other  evidence,  and  I  shall  resist  it  to  the  uttermost. 
Let  the  Presbytery  consider  what  the  prosecution 
might  do  if  you  grant  them  the  privilege  of  offering  in 
proof  the  whole  of  the  Inaugural,  and  all  my  writings 
referred  to  therein,  and  the  whole  of  Holy  Scripture 
and  the  Standards.  I  have  shown  you  what  extensive 
changes  in  evidence  they  have  made  in  the  Amended 
Charges.  I  have  called  your  attention  to  the  labor  in- 
volved in  the  change  of  my  defence  to  meet  these 
charges.  Is  it  in  the  interest  of  justice  that  they  should 
be  allowed  to  make  what  changes  they  please  in  their 
evidence,  at  any  time  they  please,  whether  immediately 
before  I  make  my  defence,  or  afterwards,  when  I  am 
precluded  from  further  argument  ?  Is  it  in  the  interest 
of  justice  that  they  should  be  allowed  to  change  their 
lines  of  attack  after  long  premeditation,  and  force  me 
to  change  my  lines  of  defence  without  any  warning 
whatever  and  without  any  time  for  preparation  on  my 
part  ?  Is  it  in  the  interest  of  justice  that  they  should 
again  throw  away  the  greater  part  of  their  evidence  in 
the  Amended  Charges  as  they  threw  it  away  from  the 
original  Charges,  and  virtually  and  practically  make  new 
Charges  in  their  argument,  without  the  consent  of  the 
Presbytery?     Is  the  evidence  presented  in  the  Specifi- 


PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS  TO  AMENDED  CHARGES      57 

cations  a  mere  cloud  of  dust  to  hide  the  real  evidence 
which  they  hold  in  reserve  to  spring  upon  us  at  such 
time  as  they  choose?  I  cannot  for  a  moment  think  that 
you  will  allow  such  injustice  to  be  done.  I  object  to 
this  wholesale  offer  of  proof. 

Have  you  considered  what  will  be  required  of  you,  if 
you  consent  to  this  proposal  of  the  prosecution  ?  It  will 
be  necessary  for  you  to  employ  a  reader  to  read  to  you 
all  of  the  contents  of  the  Standards  of  the  Church,  all 
of  Holy  Scripture,  the  entire  Inaugural  Address,  and  all 
of  my  writings  referred  to  therein.  You  are  required  by 
law  to  have  all  the  proposed  evidence  before  you.  We 
cannot  consent  that  the  prosecution  should  pick  and 
choose  out  of  all  this  material  such  passages  as  they 
may  desire  when  they  argue  on  behalf  of  their  Charges. 
Therefore  I  request,  in  the  interests  of  law  and  of  justice, 
that  the  Amended  Charges  be  amended  by  striking  out 
this  objectionable  proposition,  and  the  prosecution  be 
restricted  to  the  evidence  offered  under  the  specifications 
of  the  Amended  Charges. 

B.   The  Change  in  the  Nature  of  the  Charges. 

I  object  to  the  Amended  Charges  that  the  nature  of 
the  original  Charges  has  been  changed.  The  original 
Charges  called  attention  to  several  doctrines  taught  by 
me,  which,  as  it  was  claimed,  were  in  conflict  with  the 
Standards.  The  only  doctrine  of  the  Standards  with 
which  conflict  was  alleged,  was  the  cardinal  doctrine 
"  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice." 

The  Amended  Charges  allege  conflict  with  nine  essen- 
tial doctrines  of  the  Westminster  Standards,  as  follows : 

(i)  That  Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary. 


58      PRELIMINARr  OBJECTIONS  TO  AMENDED  CHARGES 

(2)  That  Holy  Scripture  is  the  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice. 

(3)  That  Holy  Scripture  is  the  word  of  God  written. 

(4)  That  Holy  Scripture  is  immediately  inspired. 

(5)  That  God  is  true,  omniscient,  and  unchangeable. 

(6)  That  Holy  Scripture  evidences  itself  to  be  the 
word  of  God  by  the  consent  of  all  the  parts. 

(7)  That  the  infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scrip- 
ture is  the  Scripture  itself, 

(8)  That  the  processes  of  redemption  are  limited  to 
this  world. 

(9)  That  the  souls  of  believers  are  at  their  death  at 
once  made  perfect  in  holiness. 

The  Amended  Charges,  therefore,  allege  that  my 
teachings  conflict  with  nine  different  doctrines  of  the 
Westminster  Standards.  The  original  Charges  allege 
conflict  with  only  one  cardinal  doctrine,  which  is  in- 
cluded as  one  of  the  nine.  Therefore  it  is  evident  that 
the  general  nature  of  the  original  Charges  is  changed  by 
the  introduction  of  eight  new  charges.  I  might  ask  the 
Presbytery  to  follow  the  direction  of  the  General  As- 
sembly and  the  law  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  and  so 
amend  these  Amended  Charges  as  to  cast  out  of  them 
these  eight  new  Charges.  If  you  adhere  strictly  to  law, 
you  must  do  it.  But  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  shall 
waive  this  objection  as  regards  six  of  these  new  charges, 
and  make  my  stand  against  two  of  them. 

(i).  Let  us  consider  the  last  Charge  first.  This  intro- 
duces a  new  Charge,  namely,  that  my  teaching  conflicts 
with  the  essential  doctrine  "  that  the  souls  of  believers 
are  at  their  death  at  once  made  perfect  in  holiness." 
Inasmuch  as  the  original  second  Charge  neglected  to 
state  what  doctrine  of  the  Standards  it  was  with  which 
the  doctrine  of  Progressive  Sanctification  after  Death 


PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS  TO  AMENDED  CHARGES      59 

came  in  conflict,  and  this  Amended  Charge  may  be  re- 
garded as  such  a  statement,  I  waive  my  objection  to  it, 
and  I  consent  to  go  to  trial  on  the  Vlllth  of  the  present 
Charges. 

(2).  Charges  I.  and  II.  agree  in  alleging  conflict  with 
the  essential  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scripture  and  of  the 
Standards,  that  Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary  and 
the  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  The  original  charge  was 
limited  to  conflict  with  the  cardinal  doctrine  that  Holy 
Scripture  is  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  If  these  two 
charges  had  limited  themselves  to  that  essential  doctrine 
they  would  be  in  proper  form  for  trial ;  but  they  insert 
an  additional  essential  doctrine,  namely,  that  the  Holy 
Scripture  is  most  necessary.  This  changes  the  nature  of 
the  Charge,  and  you  cannot  legally  allow  it.  I  could 
waive  this  objection,  were  it  not  for  two  reasons,  (i) 
The  combination  of  two  essential  doctrines  in  one  charge 
is  in  violation  of  the  law  of  the  charge  which  requires 
that  the  charge  should  state  but  one  offence.  This 
charge  states  two  offences,  and  is,  therefore,  insufficient 
in  form  and  legal  effect.  (2)  It  is  not  in  the  interest  of 
justice  that  a  defendant  should  be  exposed  to  conviction 
for  conflict  with  two  doctrines  in  one  charge :  for  he 
might  easily  be  convicted  by  a  minority  vote.  If  a 
minority  should  be  convinced  that  my  teaching  is  in 
conflict  with  the  essential  doctrine  that  "  Holy  Scripture 
is  most  necessary";  and  another  minority  composed  of 
different  persons  should  be  convinced  that  my  teaching 
is  in  conflict  with  the  essential  doctrine  that  "  Holy 
Scripture  is  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ";  these  two 
minorities  might  become  a  majority  and  vote  me  guilty 
if  the  vote  should  be  taken  upon  the  two  charges  to- 
gether, when  a  majority  of  votes  would  acquit  me  if  a 
vote  were  taken  on  each  charge  separately. 


QQ     PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS  TO  AMENDED  CHARGES 

It  is  my  right  to  insist  that  this  new  charge  be  stricken 
out.  At  the  same  time  I  am  entirely  willing  to  be  tried 
on  this  charge  as  a  separate  charge  if  the  Presbytery  so 
desire.  This  you  may  accomplish  either  by  breaking  up 
Charges  I.  and  11.  into  two  charges  each,  or  by  ruling 
that  a  vote  shall  be  taken  on  each  of  the  two  items  in 
Charges  I.  and  II.  separately.  This  you  must  do  in 
accordance  with  the  Book  of  Discipline:  "A  charge 
shall  not  allege  more  than  one  offence ;  several  charges 
against  the  same  person,  however,  with  the  specifications 
under  each  of  them,  may  be  presented  to  the  judicatory 
at  one  and  the  same  time,  and  may,  in  the  discretion  of 
the  judicatory,  be  tried  together.  But,  when  several 
charges  are  tried  at  the  same  time,  a  vote  on  each  charge 
must  be  separately  taken."     (i6.) 

(3).  I  have  the  same  objection  to  Charge  III.  Three 
offences  are  alleged  in  this  charge,  namely,  that  my 
teachings  are  in  conflict  with  the  essential  doctrine  (i) 
That  Holy  Scripture  is  the  word  of  God  written ; 
(2)  that  Holy  Scripture  is  immediately  inspired  ;  and  (3) 
that  Holy  Scripture  is  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 
Only  the  first  of  the  three  was  in  the  original  specifica- 
tion. The  third  was  in  the  original  charge  of  which  that 
specification  was  a  part.  But  the  second  is  an  entirely 
new  charge,  and  on  that  account  transcends  the  nature 
of  the  original  charge.  I  ask  the  Presbytery,  therefore, 
either  to  obey  the  law  of  the  charge  and  throw  out  the 
new  charge,  because  it  transcends  the  nature  of  the  orig- 
inal charge ;  or  else  to  make  three  charges  out  of  this 
one  charge,  or  else  to  rule  that  there  shall  be  three  dif- 
ferent votes  upon  it,  as  the  law  requires  when  there  are 
three  different  charges. 

(4).  Charges  V.  and  VI.  are  open  to  more  serious  ob- 
jection.   They  agree  in  alleging  that  my  doctrines  con- 


PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS  TO  AMENDED  CHARGES      Q1 

flict  with  two  essential  doctrines,  namely,  (i)  that  the 
Holy  Scripture  evidences  itself  to  be  the  word  of  God 
by  the  consent  of  all  the  parts,  and  (2)  that  the  infal- 
hble  rule  of  interpretation  is  the  Scripture  itself ;  both 
of  which  are  new  charges  and  therefore  transcend  the 
nature  of  the  original  Charge,  which  was  solely  that  these 
teachings  conflict  with  the  cardinal  doctrine  that  Holy 
Scripture  is  the  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 
Therefore,  in  law,  you  should  either  remove  these 
charges  because  they  change  the  nature  of  the  original 
Charge,  or  else  reinsert  in  these  Charges  the  essential 
doctrine  mentioned  in  the  original  Charge.  At  the 
same  time  I  am  willing  to  waive  this  objection  and  to 
go  to  trial  on  these  charges,  provided  each  of  them  is 
made  into  a  distinct  charge,  or  else  that  a  separate  vote 
shall  be  taken  on  each  charge,  as  the  law  requires  when 
there  are  several  charges. 

I  have  called  the  attention  of  the  Presbytery  to  the 
fact  that  Charges  I.,  H.,  HI.,  V.,  and  VI.  violate  the 
law  of  the  Charge  and  are  in  conflict  with  the  order  of 
the  General  Assembly,  in  that  they  change  the  nature 
of  the  original  Charge  by  introducing  several  new  doc- 
trines of  the  Standards  and  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  also 
by  combining  two  or  three  offences  in  the  same  charge. 
It  is  for  you  to  determine  this  objection  and  to  take  the 
responsibility  for  any  violation  of  law.  The  only  thing 
that  I  insist  upon,  in  the  interest  of  justice,  is,  that  every 
offence  alleged  against  me  shall  be  acted  upon  by  a 
separate  vote.  Only  in  this  way  can  you  comply  with 
the  law,  that  a  vote  on  each  charge  shall  be  separately 
taken.  Only  by  this  procedure  can  you  reach  a  just 
verdict. 

(5).  Two  charges  remain  to  be  considered,  namely, 
IV.  and  VII.     I  object  to  them  on  two  grounds,   (i) 


^2      PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS  TO  AMENDED  CHARGES 

These  are  new  charges  which  so  change  the  general 
nature  of  the  original  Charges  that  they  cannot  legally 
be  allowed  ;  and  (2)  that  it  is  not  in  the  interests  of 
ustice  that  such  Charges  as  these  should  be  approved 
by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York. 

They  are  new  charges. 

(a).  Charge  IV.  alleges  that  I  teach  a  doctrine  "  which 
is  contrary  to  the  essential  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
ture and  of  the  Standards  of  the  said  Church,  that  God 
is  true,  omniscient  and  unchangeable."  This  is  an  en- 
tirely new  charge.  There  was  nothing  in  any  of  the 
original  Charges  or  specifications  which  intimated  either 
directly  or  indirectly  that  I  taught  any  doctrine  which 
conflicted  with  the  essential  doctrine  of  the  Attributes 
of  God.  Specification  7  of  the  original  Charge  claimed 
that  my  doctrine  of  Predictive  Prophecy  was  "  contrary 
to  the  essential  doctrine  that  Holy  Scripture  is  the  in- 
fallible rule  of  faith  and  practice."  But  consider  the 
difference  between  that  specification  and  this  Charge. 
If  the  prosecution  wish  to  persist  in  this  Charge  they 
should  be  required  to  go  on  and  show  what  they  origi- 
nally proposed,  that  this  doctrine  conflicts  with  the  West- 
minster doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  ;  they  cannot  legally 
ask  me  to  defend  my  teaching  against  the  new  allega- 
tion, that  it  conflicts  with  the  Westminster  doctrine  of 
the  Attributes  of  God.  Of  the  32  texts  from  Holy 
Scripture  used  under  the  original  specification,  all  but 
five  have  been  thrown  out,  and  three  new  ones  have 
been  introduced  ;  and  instead  of  citations  from  the  ist 
chapter  of  the  Confession,  they  give  citations  from  the 
2d  chapter  of  the  Confession  in  proof  of  their  position, 
thus  showing  by  their  use  of  evidence  that  they  have  a 
new  charge  to  sustain. 

{d).  Charge  VII.  is  a  new  charge,  new  in  the  state- 


PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS  TO  AMENDED  CHARGES      63 

ment  of  the  doctrine  imputed  to  me,  and  new  in  the 
statement  of  the  essential  doctrine  with  which  my  teach- 
ing is  alleged  to  conflict. 

*'  The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  be- 
ing a  minister  of  said  Church,  and  a  member  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  the  pro- 
cesses of  redemption  extend  to  the  world  to  come  in 
the  case  of  many  who  die  in  sin ;  which  is  contrary  to 
the  essential  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Stand- 
ards of  the  said  Church,  that  the  processes  of  redemp- 
tion are  limited  to  this  world." 

That  this  is  an  entirely  new  charge  appears  not  only 
from  the  new  statements  in  the  Charge  itself,  but  also 
from  the  evidence  adduced,  {a).  The  citations  here  given 
from  the  Inaugural,  with  the  exception  of  four  lines 
which  are  also  given  under  Charge  VIII.,  were  not  given 
in  the  original  Charge  II.  at  all.  (3).  The  proofs  from 
Holy  Scripture  here  given  are  six  in  number,  only  one 
of  which,  that  relating  to  Dives  and  Lazarus,  was  used 
in  the  original  Charge  II.  and  thus  could  be  used 
equally  well  under  Charge  VIII. 

Thus  in  all  respects  this  is  a  new  charge.  On  this  ac- 
count you  cannot  recognize  it  as  a  lawful  amendment. 
You  should  strike  it  out  of  the  Amended  Charges. 

I.  I  have  another  objection  to  Charges  IV.  and  VII. 
I  claim  that  it  is  not  in  the  interests  of  justice  that  you 
should  approve  them.  They  charge  me  with  teaching 
doctrines  which  I  have  expressly  disclaimed. 

{a).  In  my  response,  November  4th,  1891,  I  said: 
*' Specification  7  alleges  that  'Dr.  Briggs  teaches 
that  predictive  prophecy  has  been  reversed  by  history, 
and  that  much  of  it  has  not  been,  and  never  can  be  ful- 
filled.'    This  specification  makes  invalid  inferences  and 


64      PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS  TO  AMENDED  CHARGES 

statements.  The  specification  makes  two  serious  changes 
in  the  sentence  of  the  Inaugural,  (i).  It  omits  altogether 
the  qualifying  clause,  '  if  we  insist  upon  the  fulfilment  of 
the  details  of  the  predictive  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment,' and  (2)  it  substitutes  for  '  many  of  these  predic- 
tions,' the  careful  statement  of  the  Inaugural  Address, 
^predictive  prophecy,'  a  general  and  comprehensive 
term;  and  thus  alleges  that  the  Address  teaches  that 
'predictive  prophecy  has  been  reversed  by  history.' 
This  allegation  is  entirely  without  justification  from 
anything  taught  in  the  Inaugural  Address,  or  any  other 
of  my  writings.  I  have  ever  taught  that  the  predictive 
prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament  has  been  fulfilled  in 
history,  or  will  yet  be  fulfilled  in  history.  I  have  shown 
in  my  book,  entitled  'Messianic  Prophecy,'  that  'the 
details  of  predictive  prophecy '  belong  to  the  symbolical 
and  typical  form,  and  were  never  designed  to  be  fulfilled. 
I  have  shown  the  historical  development  of  the  entire 
series  of  Messianic  predictions  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  pointed  them  toward  the  fulfilment  in  Jesus  Christ 
our  Saviour ;  and  have  urged  that  either  they  have  been 
fulfilled  at  His  first  advent,  are  being  fulfilled  in  His 
reign  over  His  Church,  or  will  be  fulfilled  at  His  second 
advent."  (Case,  pp.  42-43.)  Thus  I  exposed  the 
misquotation  and  misrepresentation,  and  disclaimed  the 
imputed  teachings. 

The  Charge  makes  two  slight  amendments  by  substi- 
tuting "  many  of  the  Old  Testament  predictions "  for 
"  predictive  prophecy,"  and  "  the  great  body  of  Messianic 
prediction"  for  "much  of  it,"  softening  the  one  state- 
ment in  order  to  make  the  other  still  more  offensive. 
The  reiteration  of  this  misquotation  and  misrepresenta- 
tion in  a  slightly  modified  form  in  Charge  IV.,  after  I  have 
so  distinctly  exposed  it  and  disclaimed  it,  is  an  offence 


PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS  TO  AMENDED  CHARGES      Q^ 

against  Christian  courtesy  and  an  imputation  upon  my 
veracity  which  this  Presbytery  should  not  tolerate.  It  is 
not  in  the  interest  of  justice  that  the  prosecution  should 
be  allowed  so  to  amend  the  Charges. 

{&).  Charge  VII.  charges  me  "with  teaching  that  the 
processes  of  redemption  extend  to  the  world  to  come 
in  the  case  of  many  who  die  in  sin." 

The  prosecution  impute  this  doctrine  to  me,  notwith- 
standing the  disclaimer  of  such  teaching  which  has  been 
submitted  to  the  Presbytery  on  two  different  occasions, 
(i).  Dr.  Geo.  Alexander  laid  before  the  Presbytery  on 
October  5th,  1891,  without  consultation  with  me,  my 
answers  to  the  following  questions  of  the  Directors  of 
the  Union  Theological  Seminary :  "  Do  you  hold  what 
is  commonly  known  as  the  doctrine  of  a  future  proba- 
tion? Do  you  believe  in  Purgatory?  Answer,  No. 
Do  you  believe  that  the  issues  of  this  life  are  final,  and 
that  a  man  who  dies  impenitent  will  have  no  further 
opportunity  of  salvation?     Answer,  Yes." 

(2).  In  my  response  of  Nov.  4th,  1891,  I  said  :  "  If  I  had 
been  charged  with  teaching  second  probation,  or  any  pro- 
bation whatever  after  death,  I  might  have  pointed  to  sev- 
eral of  my  writings  in  which  this  doctrine  is  distinctly 
disclaimed.  If  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  had  been  im- 
puted, or  regeneration  after  death,  or  transition  after 
death  from  the  state  of  the  condemned  to  the  state  of  the 
justified,  any  and  all  of  these  could  be  disproved  by  my 
writings."  I  ask  the  Presbytery  in  view  of  these  dis- 
claimers, if  it  is  just,  if  it  is  honorable,  if  it  is  in  accord- 
ance with  Christian  courtesy  and  gentlemanly  propriety, 
for  the  prosecution  to  make  such  charges  against  me? 

They  put  you  in  a  dilemma.  Either  you  must  with 
them  challenge  my  veracity,  or  else  you  must  permit 
them  to  present  proof  that  my  explanations  of  my  teach- 


QQ      PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS  TO  AMENDED  CHARGES 

ings  are  erroneous,  and  that  their  explanations  must  be 
accepted  as  true.  If  you  wish  to  challenge  my  veracity, 
you  should  do  it  under  a  moral  charge,  you  cannot  do  it 
under  a  doctrinal  charge.  If  you  permit  them  to  make 
such  explanations  and  recognize  them  as  valid  you  will 
engage  in  illegal  procedure,  for  according  to  the  decision 
of  the  supreme  court  of  the  Church  in  the  Craighead 
case,  "  No  man  can  rightly  be  convicted  of  heresy  by 
inference  or  implication."  "  It  is  not  right  to  charge 
any  man  with  an  opinion  which  he  disavows." 

For  these  reasons  I  object  to  Charges  IV.  and  VII.,  and 
I  demand  of  the  Presbytery  that  they  comply  with  the 
law  of  the  Church  and  reject  them  from  the  list  of 
charges. 

IV.  There  are  other  preliminary  objections  which  I 
might  make.  But  I  refrain  in  order  to  save  valuable 
time  and  to  concentrate  your  attention  upon  such 
changes  in  the  Amended  Charges  as  the  Presbytery 
ought  itself  to  make  in  the  interests  of  law  and  jus- 
tice. 

(i).  The  Prosecution  have  had  sufficient  opportunity 
to  construct  their  Charges  and  to  amend  them.  It  is 
not  in  the  interest  of  justice  that  they  should  have  any 
further  opportunity.  They  should  be  required  to  risk 
their  charges  in  the  form  in  which  the  Presbytery  may 
now  amend  them. 

(2).  It  is  not  in  the  interest  of  justice  that  I  should  be 
required  to  prepare  a  defence  against  another  set  of 
Charges.  This  is  the  third  time  that  I  have  appeared 
before  the  Presbytery  with  a  long  and  carefully  prepared 
defence.  Life  is  too  short  and  the  duties  of  life  are  too 
pressing  to  justify  me  in  constantly  readjusting  my  work 
to  suit  the  intellectual  and  rhetorical  processes  of  such 
unstable  prosecutors.     I  have  prepared  my  defence.     I 


PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS  TO  AMENDED  CHARGES      (57 

shall  present  it  to  the  Presbytery  if  you  will  have  it ;  if 
not,  I  shall  publish  it  to  the  world. 

(3).  It  is  not  in  the  interest  of  justice  that  this  Pres- 
bytery composed  of  more  than  an  hundred  ministers  and 
half  an  hundred  elders,  whose  time  and  strength  are  of 
inestimable  value  to  their  families,  to  their  business 
associates,  to  society,  to  institutions  of  learning  and  of 
benevolence,  and  to  the  Church  of  God,  should  be 
wearied  with  this  trial  any  longer  than  is  absolutely 
necessary.  Let  the  Presbytery  amend  the  Charges  in 
the  interest  of  justice  and  in  accordance  with  the  law  of 
the  Church,  and  let  us  proceed  to  trial  and  determine  so 
soon  as  possible  the  great  issues  which  are  involved  to 
ourselves  and  to  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  Presbytery  are  respectfully  requested  to  pass  upon 
these  preliminary  objections,  in  accordance  with  the 
Book  of  Discipline,  which  says:  "  The  judicatory  upon 
the  filing  of  such  objections  shall,  or  on  its  motion  may, 
determine  all  such  preliminary  objections." 

C.  A.  Briggs. 

November  28th,  1892. 


IV. 


THE  ACTION  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK  ON 
THESE  PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS;  AND  THE  COM- 
PLAINTS OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  TO  THE  SYNOD  OF 
NEW    YORK. 

A. 
The  Presbytery  by  a  vote  of  70  to  49  instructed  the 
Committee  to  strike  out  Charge  IV. 
B. 
The  Presbytery  by  a  vote  of  74  to  54  instructed  the 
Committee  to  strike  out  Charge  VII. 

C. 

The  Presbytery  by  a  large  majority  declined  to  sustain 
the  following  Objection : 

"  /  object  that  the  Charges  put  in  my  hand  November 
gth,  1892,  were  fully  disposed  of  by  the  dismissal  of  the 
case  against  me  on  November  ^th,  1 891,  and  that  the 
Presbytery  could  not  legally  cite  me  a  second  time  to  answer 
to  charges  which  they  had  dismissed!' 

Against  this  action  of  the  Presbytery,  Prof.  Briggs 
entered  the  following  complaint  to  the  Synod  of  New 
York: 

Complaint  is  hereby  made  before  the  Synod  of  New 
York  by  the  persons  whose  names  are  appended  below, 
being  persons  subject  and  submitting  to  the  jurisdiction 

(69) 


70  ACTION  OF  PRESBYTERY  ON  PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS 

of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  in  accordance  with  Sec- 
tions 83  and  86  of  the  Revised  Book  of  Disciphne, 
against  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York, 
November  29,  1892,  in  refusing  to  sustain  the  first  ob- 
jection made  by  the  defendant  to  the  Amended  Charges 
in  the  case  of  the  Rev.  Chas.  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  viz. : 

"  (I.)  I  object  that  the  charges  put  in  my  hands  No- 
vember 9th,  1892,  were  finally  disposed  of  by  the  dis- 
missal of  the  case  against  me  on  November  4th,  1891, 
and  that  the  Presbytery  could  not  legally  cite  me  a  second 
time  to  answer  to  charges  which  they  had  dismissed." 

Against  this  refusal  of  the  Presbytery,  complaint  is 
made  for  the  following  reasons: 

1.  When  the  Presbytery  dismissed  the  case,  both  the 
original  parties  acquiesced,  viz.,  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America,  represented  by  the 
Presbytery,  on  the  one  side,  and  the  defendant  on  the 
other.  Therefore  there  could  be  no  legal  appeal,  and 
no  legal  reopening  of  the  case,  since  an  appeal  can  be 
taken  only  by  one  of  the  original  parties. 

2.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  Church  has  decided 
[Moore's  Digest,  1873,  P-  592,  1886,  p.  692],  that  mem- 
bers of  a  court  trying  a  case  are  not  parties  in  the  case, 
and  may  not  appeal.  Therefore,  any  members  of  the 
court  who  may  have  acted  as  appellants,  have  so  acted 
without  right,  and  any  action  taken  on  their  appeal  is 
null  and  void. 

3.  A  complaint  was  filed  with  the  Synod  of  New 
York  against  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  in  dismissing 
the  case,  but  the  complainants  obtained  leave  from  the 
Synod  to  withdraw  their  complaint.  Therefore  there 
remained  no  legal  challenge  to  the  action  of  the  Presby- 
tery in  dismissing  the  case,  and  this  action  should  have 
been  regarded  as  final. 


COMPLAINTS  OF  PROF,   BRIGGS  TO  SYNOD  71 

4.  The  Presbytery  had  no  legal  right  to  bring  against 
the  defendant  Amended  Charges,  when  the  original 
charges  had  already  been  finally  disposed  of. 

For  these  reasons,  notice  of  complaint  having  been 
duly  given  within  ten  days  after  the  action  complained 
of,  according  to  Section  84  of  the  Revised  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline, complaint  is  hereby  made  in  due  form  to  the 
next  higher  judicatory,  being  the  Synod  of  New  York, 
against  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  above 
described,  and  the  Synod  is  most  respectfully  and  earn- 
estly requested  to  entertain  this  complaint  and  to  take 
therein  such  action  as  shall  in  its  judgment  appear  wise 
and  hkely  to  promote  good  order,  justice,  and  the  peace, 
purity,  and  welfare  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

[Signed],  C.  A.  Briggs, 

Francis  Brown, 
etc.,  etc. 

D. 

The  Presbytery  by  a  large  majority  declined  to  sustain 
the  following  Objection  and  the  poi.nts  enumerated  in  it : 

"  /  object  to  the  order  and  regularity  of  the  proceeding 
in  the  Presbytery,  in  any  and  every  action  taken  against 
me  since  the  dismissal  of  the  said  charges  on  November 
/^th,  1 89 1." 

Against  this  action  of  the  Presbytery  Prof.  Briggs 
entered  the  following  complaint  to  the  Synod  of  New 
York: 

Complaint  is  hereby  made  before  the  Synod  of  New 
York  by  the  persons  whose  names  are  appended  below, 
being  persons  subject  and  submitting  to  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  in  accordance  with  Sec- 
tions 83  and  86  of  the  Revised  Book  of  Discipline, 
against  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  No- 


72   ACTION  OF  PRESBYTERY  ON  PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS 

vember  29,  1892,1*11  refusing  to  sustain  \\i&  second  objec- 
tion made  by  the  defendant  to  the  Amended  Charges  in 
the  case  of  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  viz. : 

"  (II.)  I  object  to  the  order  and  regularity  of  the  pro- 
ceeding in  the  Presbytery,  in  any  and  every  action  taken 
against  me  since  the  dismissal  of  the  said  Charges  on 
November  4th,  1891." 

Against  this  refusal  of  the  Presbytery  complaint  is 
made  for  the  following  reasons : 

1.  The  proceeding  in  the  Presbytery  was  illegal  in 
that  the  floor  was  allowed  to  a  Committee  to  bring  in 
Amended  Charges,  which  Committee  claimed  to  be  a 
Committee  of  Prosecution,  an  original  party,  and  virtu- 
ally and  practically  independent  of  the  Presbytery,  not- 
withstanding the  fact  that  the  minutes  of  the  Presbytery 
show  that  no  such  Committee  was  ever  appointed  by 
the  Presbytery. 

2.  The  proceeding  in  the  Presbytery  was  illegal  in 
that  the  Presbytery  reopened  the  case  with  Amended 
Charges,  while  the  right  of  the  Committee  aforesaid  to 
act  as  a  Committee  of  Prosecution  was  challenged  be- 
fore the  Synod  of  New  York  by  a  complaint  signed  by 
more  than  one-third  of  the  Presbytery ;  this  complaint 
being,  at  the  time  of  the  action  now  complained  of,  not 
yet  determined  by  the  Synod. 

3.  The  proceeding  in  the  Presbytery  was  illegal  in 
that  the  Presbytery  sustained  the  Moderator,  November 
9th,  1892,  in  his  decision  that  an  objection  offered  to 
the  status  of  the  Committee  was  at  that  time  out  of  or- 
der, permitting  the  said  Committee  to  argue  on  behalf 
of  their  claim  to  be  a  Prosecuting  Committee  and  an 
original  party,  and  refusing  to  allow  to  the  defendant  his 
legal  right  of  argument  in  support  of  his  objection  against 
said  claim. 


COMPLAINTS  OF  PROF.  BRIGGS  TO  SYNOD  73 

4.  Therefore  the  entire  procedure  of  the  Presbytery 
in  allowing  the  said  Committee  to  present  Amended 
Charges,  in  serving  these  Charges  upon  the  defendant, 
and  in  citing  him  to  appear  and  answer  to  them,  was  al- 
together unconstitutional  and  illegal. 

For  these  reasons,  notice  of  complaint  having  been 
duly  given  less  than  ten  days  after  the  action  complained 
of,  according  to  Section  84  of  the  Revised  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline, complaint  is  hereby  made  in  due  form  to  the 
next  higher  judicatory,  being  the  Synod  of  New  York, 
against  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  above 
described,  and  the  Synod  is  most  respectfully  and  earn- 
estly requested  to  entertain  this  complaint,  and  to  take 
therein  such  action  as  shall  in  its  judgment  appear  wise 
and  likely  to  promote  good  order,  justice,  and  the  peace, 
purity,  and  welfare  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

[Signed],  C.  A.  Briggs, 

Francis  Brown, 
etc.,  etc. 

E. 

The  Presbytery  by  a  vote  of  71  to  56  took  the  follow- 
ing action : 

"  Without  sustaining  the  general  objection  to  the  rel- 
evancy of  the  Scripture  and  Confessional  Proofs,  this 
Presbytery  would  direct  that  they  be  transferred  from 
the  specifications  to  the  charges." 

F. 

The  Presbytery  by  a  vote  of  70  to  68  declined  to 
strike  out  from  the  Amended  Charges  and  Specifications 
the  following  proffer  of  wholesale  evidence  : 

"  The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  represented  by  the  undersigned  Prosecuting 


74  ACTION  OF  PRESBYTERY  ON  PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS 

Committee,  offers  in  evidence  the  whole  of  the  said  In- 
augural Address,  both  the  first  and  second  editions,  and 
all  the  works  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.^ 
quoted  therein,  in  so  far  as  they  bear  upon  this  case  ; 
also  the  appendix  to  the  second  edition  of  said  Address, 
and  all  the  works  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
D.D.,  quoted  therein,  in  so  far  as  they  bear  upon  this 
case ;  the  whole  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  whole 
of  the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America." 

Against  this  action  of  the  Presbytery  Prof.  Briggs  enter- 
ed the  following  complaint  to  the  Synod  of  New  York : 

Complaint  is  hereby  made  before  the  Synod  of  New 
York  by  the  persons  whose  names  are  appended  below, 
being  persons  subject  and  submitting  to  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  in  accordance  with  Sec- 
tions 83  and  86  of  the  Revised  Book  of  Discipline, 
against  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York, 
November  30th,  1892,  in  refusing  by  a  vote  of  70  to  68, 
to  strike  out  from  the  Amended  Charges  in  the  case  of 
the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  the  concluding  para- 
graph, as  follows : 

"The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  represented  by  the  undersigned  Prosecuting 
Committee,  offers  in  evidence  the  whole  of  the  said 
Inaugural  Address,  both  the  first  and  second  editions, 
and  all  the  works  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
D.D.,  quoted  therein,  in  so  far  as  they  bear  upon  this 
case ;  also  the  appendix  to  the  second  edition  of  said 
Address,  and  all  the  works  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.D.,  quoted  therein,  in  so  far  as  they  bear  upon 
this  case ;  the  whole  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the 
whole  of  the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America." 


COMPLAINTS  OF  PROF.   BRIGGS  TO  SYNOD  75 

Against  the  refusal  of  the  Presbytery  to  strike  out  this 
paragraph,  complaint  is  made  for  the  following  reasons : 

1.  The  offer  of  evidence  made  in  this  paragraph  was 
in  violation  of  Section  15  of  the  Revised  Book  of  Disci- 
pline, which  requires  that  "  the  charge  shall  set  forth 
the  alleged  offence  ;  and  the  specifications  shall  set  forth 
the  facts  relied  upon  to  sustain  the  charge.  Each  spec- 
ification shall  declare,  as  far  as  possible,  the  time,  place, 
and  circumstances,  and  shall  be  accompanied  with  the 
names  of  the  witnesses  to  be  cited  for  its  support." 

2.  When  the  evidence  is  documentary,  the  place  in 
the  document  must  be  given,  and  the  citations  must  be 
made,  in  order  that  the  defendant  may  have  time  to  con- 
sider and  respond  to  every  part  of  the  evidence. 

3.  It  was  not  in  the  interest  of  justice  that  the  pros- 
ecution should  be  permitted  to  offer  evidence  in  this 
wholesale  manner,  and  hence  this  paragraph  in  the 
Amended  Charges  was  illegal,  since  only  amendments 
"in  the  furtherance  of  justice"  are  permitted  by  the 
Book  of  Discipline  [Section  22]. 

For  these  reasons  notice  of  complaint  having  been 
duly  given,  less  than  ten  days  after  the  action  complained 
of,  according  to  Section  84  of  the  Revised  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline, complaint  is  hereby  made  in  due  form  to  the 
next  higher  judicatory,  being  the  Synod  of  New  York, 
against  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  above 
described,  and  the  Synod  is  most  respectfully  and  earn- 
estly requested  to  entertain  this  complaint  and  to  take 
therein  such  action  as  shall  in  its  judgment  appear  wise 
and  likely  to  promote  good  order,  justice,  and  the  peace, 
purity,  and  welfare  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

[Signed],  C.  A.  Briggs, 

Francis  Brown, 
etc.,  etc. 


76  ACTION  OF  PRESBYTERY  ON  PRELIMINARY  OBJECTIONS 

G. 

'The  Presbytery  resolved  by  a  large  majority  that  "in 
view  of  the  conditional  waiver  made  by  the  defendant, 
the  Presbytery,  without  passing  upon  his  objections  to 
Charges  i,  2,  3,  5,  and  6,  rules  that  in  taking  the  vote 
each  of  the  items  in  these  charges  as  indicated  by  nu- 
merals in  the  objections  filed  shall  be  voted  upon  sep- 
arately." 

H. 

The  prosecution  offered  in  evidence  "  the  whole  of 
the  said  Inaugural  Address,  both  the  first  and  second  edi- 
tions "...."  the  works  of  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
D.D.,  quoted  therein,  in  so  far  as  they  bear  upon  this 
case "...."  the  Appendix  to  the  second  edition  of 
said  Address  and  all  the  works  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  quoted  therein,  in  so  far  as  they  bear 
upon  this  case  "...."  the  whole  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures and  the  whole  of  the  Standards  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America." 

Prof.  Briggs  called  "  for  the  reading  of  this  proposed 
evidence  so  far  as  it  bears  upon  this  case."  The  Pres- 
bytery, instead  of  requiring  the  prosecution  to  read  the 
proposed  documentary  evidence,  decided  by  a  majority 
vote: 

"  That  the  evidence  offered  by  the  prosecution  be  con- 
sidered by  us  competent." 

Against  this  action  of  the  Presbytery,  Prof.  Briggs 
entered  the  following  complaint  to  the  Synod  of  New 
York: 

Complaint  is  hereby  made  before  the  Synod  of  New 
York  by  the  persons  whose  names  are  appended  below, 
being  persons  subject  and  submitting  to  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  in  accordance  with  Sec- 
tions 83  and  86  of   the  Revised   Book  of   Discipline 


COMPLAINTS  OF  PROF.   BRIGGS  TO  SYNOD 


77 


against  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  De- 
cember I,  1892,  in  voting  "that  the  evidence  offered  by 
the  prosecution  be  considered  competent." 

Against  this  action  complaint  is  made  for  the  follow- 
ing reasons : 

1.  The  evidence  referred  to  in  this  action  was  not  be- 
fore the  Presbytery,  because  it  was  not  read  in  the  hear- 
ing of  the  Presbytery. 

2.  The  defendant  called  for  the  reading  of  the  pro- 
posed evidence  so  far  as  it  bears  upon  the  case  [Sten- 
ographic Report,  p.  360]  in  order  that  he  might  have  all 
the  evidence  before  him  ;  but  this,  his  just  and  reason- 
able request,  was  refused  by  the  Presbytery  in  the  above 
action. 

3.  By  the  action  complained  of  the  Presbytery  re- 
solved to  proceed  to  the  adjudication  of  a  case  in  which 
a  large  part  of  the  evidence  offered  by  the  prosecution 
was  neither  read  to  the  court,  nor  in  any  other  specific 
and  detailed  manner  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
court  and  the  defendant. 

For  these  reasons  notice  of  complaint  having  been 
duly  given,  less  than  ten  days  after  the  action  com- 
plained of,  according  to  Section  84  of  the  Revised  Book 
of  Discipline,  complaint  is  hereby  made  in  due  form 
to  the  next  higher  judicatory,  being  the  Synod  of  New 
York,  against  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York 
above  described,  and  the  Synod  is  most  respectfully  and 
earnestly  requested  to  entertain  this  complaint,  and  to 
take  therein  such  action  as  shall  in  its  judgment  appear 
wise  and  likely  to  promote  good  order,  justice,  and  the 
peace,  purity,  and  welfare  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 
[Signed],  C.  A.  Briggs, 

Francis  Brown, 
etc.,  etc. 


THE  EVIDENCE    SUBMITTED    TO    THE   PRESBYTERY  OF 
NEW  YORK  BY  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS,  DECEMBER  5,  1892. 

Mr.  Moderator,  Ministers  and  Elders  of  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York  : 

Inasmuch  as  my  preliminary  objection  to  the  presen- 
tation by  the  prosecution  of  evidence  by  the  wholesale, 
and  my  request  for  the  reading  of  their  evidence,  have 
been  overruled  by  the  Presbytery,  I  submit  to  your  de- 
cisions with  the  reservation  of  all  rights  of  appeal  and 
complaint,  and  claim  the  same  privilege  for  the  defend- 
ant which  you  have  granted  to  the  prosecution. 

I  submit  the  following  documentary  evidence  "  in  so 
far  as  it  bears  upon  this  case,"  reading  such  portions  as 
I  desire  to  bring  before  you  at  this  time,  and  reserving 
the  right  to  read  such  other  portions  as  I  may  desire  to 
use  in  the  several  stages  of  the  defence. 

(i).  I  offer  in  evidence  the  whole  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  in  the  following 
texts  and  versions:  {a).  The  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old 
Testament,  Theile's  edition,  {b).  The  Septuagint  version 
of  the  Old  Testament,  Sweete's  edition,  {c).  The  Greek 
text  of  the  New  Testament,  edition  of  Westcott  and 
Hort.  (d).  The  Revised  English  Version  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments,  {e).  The  Authorized  Version, 
the  Variorum  Reference  edition. 

I  submit  these  without  reading,  according  to  the 
ruling  of  the  Presbytery. 

(2).  I  offer  in  evidence  the  Standards  of  the  Presby- 

(79) 


80  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

terian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  in  the 
amended  edition  published  by  the  Presbyterian  Board  of 
Publication,  1891.  I  submit  these  without  reading 
according  to  the  ruling  of  the  Presbytery,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  a  few  passages  which  I  shall  now  read : 

Chap.  I.,  5,  6,  7,    The  Westminster  Confession. 

"  5.  We  may  be  moved  and  induced  by  the  testimony  of  the 
church  to  an  high  and  reverent  esteem  for  the  Holy  Scripture  ; 
and  the  heavenliness  of  the  matter,  the  efficacy  of  the  doctrine, 
the  majesty  of  the  style,  the  consent  of  all  the  parts,  the  scope 
of  the  whole,  (which  is  to  give  all  glory  to  God),  the  full  discov- 
ery it  makes  of  the  only  way  of  man's  salvation,  the  many  other 
incomparable  excellencies,  and  the  entire  perfection  thereof,  are 
arguments  whereby  it  doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the 
word  of  God ;  yet,  notwithstanding,  our  full  persuasion  and 
assurance  of  the  infallible  truth,  and  divine  authority  thereof,  is 
from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  bearing  witness  by  and 
with  the  word  in  our  hearts. 

"6.  The  whole  counsel  of  God,  concerning  all  things  neces- 
sary for  his  own  glory,  man's  salvation,  faith,  and  life,  is  either 
expressly  laid  down  in  Scripture,  or  by  good  and  necessary  con- 
sequence maybe  deduced  from  Scripture  :  unto  which  nothing  at 
any  time  is  to  be  added,  whether  by  new  revelations  of  the  Spirit, 
or  traditions  of  men.  Nevertheless  we  acknowledge  the  inward 
illumination  of  the  Spirit  of  God  to  be  necessary  for  the  saving 
understanding  of  such  things  as  are  revealed  in  the  word  ;  and 
that  there  are  some  circumstances  concerning  the  worship  of 
God,  and  the  government  of  the  church,  common  to  human 
actions  and  societies,  which  are  to  be  ordered  by  the  light  of 
nature  and  Christian  prudence,  according  to  the  general  rules  of 
the  word,  which  are  always  to  be  observed, 

"7.  All  things  in  Scripture  are  not  alike  plain  in  themselves, 
nor  alike  clear  unto  all ;  yet  those  things  which  are  necessary  to 
be  known,  believed,  and  observed,  for  salvation,  are  so  clearly 
propounded  and  opened  in  some  places  of  Scripture  or  other,  that 
not  only  the  learned,  but  the  unlearned,  in  a  due  use  of  the 
ordinary  means,  may  attain  unto  a  sufl&cient  understanding  of 
them." 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  81 

Chap.  X.,  i :  of  Effectual  Calling. 
'•  All  those  whom  God  hath  predestinated  unto  life,  and  those 
only,  he  is  pleased,  in  his  appointed  and  accepted  time,  effect- 
ually to  call,  by  his  word  and  Spirit,  out  of  that  state  of  sin  and 
death,  in  which  they  are  by  nature,  to  grace  and  salvation  by 
Jesus  Christ ;  enlightening  their  minds  spiritually  and  savingly, 
to  understand  the  things  of  God ;  taking  away  their  heart  of 
stone,  and  giving  unto  them  an  heart  of  flesh ;  renewing  their 
will,  and  by  his  almighty  power  determining  them  to  that 
which  is  good  ,  and  effectually  drawing  them  to  Jesus  Christ,  yet 
so  as  they  come  most  freely,  being  made  willing  by  his  grace." 

Chap.  XIII.,  i,  2,  3  :  0/  Sanctification. 

"  They  who  are  effectually  called  and  regenerated,  having  a 
new  heart  and  a  new  spirit  created  in  them,  are  further  sanctified, 
really  and  personally,  through  the  virtue  of  Christ's  death  and 
resurrection,  by  his  word  and  Spirit  dwelling  in  them:  the 
dominion  of  the  whole  body  of  sin  is  destroyed,  and  the  several 
lusts  thereof  are  more  and  more  weakened  and  mortified ;  and 
they  more  and  more  quickened  and  strengthened,  in  all  saving 
graces,  to  the  practice  of  true  holiness,  without  which  no  man 
shall  see  the  Lord." 

"  2.  This  sanctification  is  throughout  in  the  whole  man,  yet 
imperfect  in  this  life  :  there  abideth  still  some  remnants  of  cor- 
ruption in  every  part,  whence  ariseth  a  continual  and  irreconcil- 
able war,  the  flesh  lusting  against  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit 
against  the  flesh. 

"  3.  In  which  war,  although  the  remaining  corruption  for  a 
time  may  much  prevail,  yet,  through  the  continual  supply  of 
strength  from  the  sanctifying  Spirit  of  Christ,  the  regenerate 
part  doth  overcome  :  and  so  the  saints  grow  in  grace,  perfecting 
holiness  in  the  fear  of  God." 

Chap.  XVIII.,  i,  2:  of  the  Assurance  of  Grace  and  Salvation. 

"  Although  hypocrites,  and  other  unregenerate  men,  may  vainly 
deceive  themselves  with  false  hopes  and  carnal  presumptions  of 
being  in  the  favor  of  God  and  estate  of  salvation  ;  which  hope  of 
theirs  shall  perish :  yet  such  as  truly  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus, 


82        THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESaOR  BRIGGS 

and  love  him  in  sincerity,  endeavoring  to  walk  in  all  good  con- 
science before  him,  may  in  this  life  be  certainly  assured  that 
they  are  in  a  state  of  grace,  and  may  rejoice  in  the  hope  of  the 
glory  of  God  ;  which  hope  shall  never  make  them  ashamed. 

"  2.  This  certainty  is  not  a  bare  conjectural  and  probable  per- 
suasion, grounded  upon  a  fallible  hope ;  but  an  infallible  assur- 
ance of  faith,  founded  upon  the  divine  truth  of  the  promises  of 
salvation,  the  inward  evidence  of  those  graces  unto  which  these 
promises  are  made,  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  of  adoption  wit- 
nessing with  our  spirits  that  we  are  the  children  of  God  :  which 
Spirit  is  the  earnest  of  our  inheritance,  whereby  we  are  sealed  to 
the  day  of  redemption." 

Chap.  XX.,  2  :  of  Christian  Liberty,  and  Liberty  of  Conscience. 

"  2.  God  alone  is  Lord  of  the  conscience,  and  hath  left  it  free 
from  the  doctrines  and  commandments  of  men  which  are  in 
anything  contrary  to  his  word,  or  beside  it,  in  matters  of  faith  or 
worship.  So  that  to  believe  such  doctrines,  or  to  obey  such 
commandments  out  of  conscience,  is  to  betray  true  liberty  of 
conscience  ;  and  the  requiring  an  implicit  faith,  and  an  absolute 
and  blind  obedience,  is  to  destroy  liberty  of  conscience,  and 
reason  also." 

Chap.  XXV.,  3 :  of  the  Church. 

"  3.  Unto  this  catholic  visible  church,  Christ  hath  given  the 
ministry,  oracles,  and  ordinances  of  God,  for  the  gathering  and 
perfecting  of  the  saints,  in  this  life,  to  the  end  of  the  world  :  and 
doth  by  his  own  presence  and  Spirit,  according  to  his  promise, 
make  them  effectual  thereunto." 


Chap.  XXVII.,  3  :  of  the  Sacraments. 

"  3.  The  grace  which  is  exhibited  in  or  by  the  sacraments, 
rightly  used,  is  not  conferred  by  any  power  in  them,  neither 
doth  the  efficacy  of  a  sacrament  depend  upon  the  piety  or  in- 
tention of  him  that  doth  administer  it,  but  upon  the  work  of 
the  Spirit,  and  the  word  of  institution,  which  contains,  together 
with  a  precept  authorizing  the  use  thereof,  a  promise  of  benefit 
to  worthy  receivers." 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRiQGS  83 

Larger  Catechism,  Quest.  90  :  "  What  shall  be  done  to  the 
righteous  at  the  day  of  judgment  ?  " 

"  A.  At  the  day  of  judgment,  t^e  righteous,  being  Caught  up 
to  Christ  in  the  clouds,  shall  be  set  on  his  right  hand,  and  there 
openly  acknowledged  and  acquitted,  shall  join  with  him  in  the 
judging  of  reprobate  angels  and  men  :  and  shall  be  received  into 
heaven,  where  they  shall  be  fully  and  forever  freed  from  all  sin 
and  misery ;  filled  with  inconceivable  joys ;  made  perfectly  holy 
and  happy  both  in  body  and  soul,  in  the  company  of  innumera- 
ble saints  and  angels,  but  especially  in  the  immediate  vision  and 
fruition  of  God  the  Father,  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  to  all  eternity.  And  this  is  the  perfect  and  fulJ  com- 
munion, which  the  members  of  the  invisible  church  shall  enjoy 
with  Christ  in  glory,  at  the  resurrection  and  day  of  judgment." 

Shorter  Catechism,  Quest.  2  :  "  What  rule  hath  God  given 
to  direct  us  how  we  may  glorify  and  enjoy  him  ?  " 

"  A.  The  word  of  God,  which  is  contained  in  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  is  the  only  rule  to  direct  us 
how  we  may  glorify  and  enjoy  him." 

Book  of  Discipline,  Sect.  i. 

"  L  Discipline  is  the  exercise  of  that  authority,  and  the  ap- 
plication of  that  system  of  laws,  which  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has 
appointed  in  his  church." 

(3).  I  shall  offer  in  evidence  the  Inaugural  Address 
as  published  in  the  first  edition  with  accompanying 
documents  under  the  title,  "The  Edward  Robinson 
Chair  of  Biblical  Theology,"  as  published  in  the  second 
edition  with  an  appendix,  and  as  published  in  a  third 
and  fourth  editions  with  appendixes  all  under  the  title, 
"  T/ie  Authority  of  Holy  Scripture^  I  beg  leave  to  put 
a  third  edition  of  these  documents  in  the  hands  of 
every  member  of  the  court  in  place  of  reading  them,  ex- 
cept so  far  as  the  following  extracts  which  I  shall  now 
read  in  order  to  put  the  citations  made  by  the  prosecu- 
tion in  the  light  of  their  context.  I  shall  read  pp.  4-6 : 
'  "  Biblical  Theology  is,  at  the  present  time,  the  vantage  ground 
for  the  solution  of  those  important  problems  in  religion,  doctrine, 


84  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

and  morals  that  are  compelling  the  attention  of  the  men  of  our 
times.  The  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God,  and  its  authority  is  divine 
authority  that  determines  the  faith  and  life  of  men.  Biblical 
scholars  have  been  long  held  in  bondage  to  ecclesiasticism  and 
dogmatism.  But  modem  Biblical  criticism  has  won  the  battle  of 
freedom.  The  accumulations  of  long  periods  of  traditional  specu- 
lation and  dogmatism  have  been  in  large  measure  removed,  and 
the  Bible  itself  stands  before  the  men  of  our  time  in  a  com- 
manding position,  such  as  it  never  has  enjoyed  before.  On  all 
sides  it  is  asked,  not  what  do  the  creeds  teach,  what  do  the 
theologians  say,  what  is  the  authority  of  the  Church,  but  what 
does  the  Bible  itself  teach  us  }  It  is  the  office  of  Biblical  The- 
ology to  answer  this  question.  It  is  the  culmination  of  the  Work 
of  Exegesis.  It  rises  on  a  complete  induction  through  all  the 
departments  of  Biblical  study  to  a  comprehensive  grasp  of  the 
Bible  as  a  whole,  in  the  unity  and  variety  of  the  sum  of  its 
teaching.  It  draws  the  line  with  the  teaching  of  the  Bible.  It 
fences  off  from  the  Scriptures  all  the  speculations,  all  the  dog- 
matic elaborations,  all  the  doctrinal  adaptations  that  have  been 
made  in  the  history  of  doctrine  in  the  Church.  It  does  not  deny 
their  propriety  and  importance,  but  it  insists  upon  the  three-fold 
distinction  as  necessary  to  truth  and  theological  honesty,  that 
the  theology  of  the  Bible  is  one  thing,  the  only  infallible  authority; 
the  theology  of  the  creeds  is  another  thing,  having  simply  eccle- 
siastical authority  ;  and  the  theology  of  the  theologians,  or  Dog- 
matic Theology,  is  a  third  thing,  which  has  no  more  authority  than 
any  other  system  of  human  construction.  It  is  well  known  that 
until  quite  recent  times,  and  even  at  present  in  some  quarters,  the 
creeds  have  lorded  it  over  the  Scriptures,  and  the  dogmaticians 
have  lorded  it  over  the  creeds,  so  that  in  its  last  analysis  the  au- 
thority in  the  Church  has  been,  too  often,  the  authority  of  certain 
theologians.  Now,  Biblical  Theology  aims  to  limit  itself  strictly  to 
the  theology  of  the  Bible  itself.  Biblical  theologians  are  fallible 
men,  and  doubtless  it  is  true,  that  they  err  in  their  interpretation  of 
the  Scriptures,  as  have  others  ;  but  it  is  the  aim  of  the  discipline 
to  give  the  theology  of  the  Bible  pure  and  simple  ;  and  the  in- 
ductive and  historical  methods  that  determine  the  working  of 
the  department  are  certainly  favorable  to  an  objective  presenta- 
tion of  the  subject  and  are  unfavorable  to  the  intrusion  of  sub- 
jective fancies  and   circumstantial  considerations.      It  will   be 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  §5 

my  aim,  so  long  as  I  remain  in  the  chair,  to  accomplish  this  ideal 
as  far  as  possible.  Without  fear  or  favor  I  shall  teach  the  truth 
of  God's  word  as  I  find  it.  The  theology  of  the  Bible  is  much 
simpler,  richer,  and  grander  than  any  of  the  creeds  or  dogmatic 
systems.  These  have  been  built  upon  select  portions  of  the 
Bible,  and  there  is  capriciousness  of  selection  in  them  all.  But 
Biblical  Theology  makes  no  selection  of  texts — it  uses  the  entire 
Bible  in  all  its  passages,  and  in  every  single  passage,  giving  each 
its  place  and  importance  in  the  unfolding  of  divine  revelation. 
To  Biblical  Theology  the  Bible  is  a  mine  of  untold  wealth  ;  treas- 
ures, new  and  old,  are  in  its  storehouses ;  all  its  avenues  lead 
in  one  way  or  another,  to  the  presence  of  the  living  God  and 
the  divine  Saviour." 

Page  lo :  "  President  Butler  addressed  Professor  Briggs  as 
follows : 

"  On  behalf  of  the  Board  of  Directors,  and  in  accordance  with 
the  constitution  of  the  '  Union  Theological  Seminary  in  the  City 
of  New  York,'  I  call  upon  you  to  '  make  and  subscribe  '  the  '  dec- 
laration '  required  of  each  member  of  the  Faculty  of  this  insti- 
tution." 

"  Thereupon  Professor  Briggs  made  the  '  declaration  '  as  fol- 
lows : 

"'I  believe  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  to 
be  the  Word  of  God,  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ; 
and  I  do  now,  in  the  presence  of  God  and  the  Directors  of  this 
Seminary,  solemnly  and  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith,  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine 
taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  I  do  also,  in  like  manner,  approve 
of  the  Presbyterian  Form  of  Government ;  and  I  do  solemnly 
promise  that  I  will  not  teach  or  inculcate  anything  which  shall 
appear  to  me  to  be  subversive  of  the  said  system  of  doctrines, 
or  of  the  principles  of  said  Form  of  Government,  so  long  as  I 
shall  continue  to  be  a  Professor  in  the  Seminary.'  " 

I  ask  the  court  to  read  especially  pages  23-29  ;  32-36  ; 
52-55.     I  read  from  the  appendixes,  page  85  : 

"When  it  was  said,  'There  are  historically  three  great  foun- 
tains of  divine  authority— the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Rea- 
son ' — I  did  not  say,  and  I  did  not  give  any  one  the  right  to  infer 


gg  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

from  anjrthing  whatever  in  the  Inaugural  Address  or  in  any  of 
my  writings,  that  I  co-ordinated  the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the 
Reason." 

I  ask  the  court  to  read  pages  85-89 ;  and  I  read  also 
the  following,  on  page  in: 

"The  views  that  I  have  expressed  with  regard  to  sanctification 
after  death  should  be  carefully  distinguished  from  the  Roman 
Catholic  doctrine  of  Purgatory  on  the  one  side  and  the  Arminian 
doctrine  of  Probation  on  the  other  side.  Both  of  these  I  reject. 
I  build  on  the  Biblical  doctrine  of  the  Middle  State  and  the  in- 
variable statement  of  the  New  Testament  that  the  second  ad- 
vent of  Jesus  Christ  is  the  goal  of  sanctification.  Rom.  viii. 
29-30;  I  Cor.  i.  8  ;  Eph.  iv.  13-26  ;  Phil,  i,  6 ;  i  Thess.  iii.  13  ;  v. 
23;  2  Peter  iii.  13-14;  John  iii.  2-3.  There  is  not  a  passage  in 
the  Bible  that  teaches  either  directly  or  indirectly  immediate 
sanctification  at  death." 

(4).  I  offer  in  evidence  the  following  official  documents 
in  so  far  as  they  bear  upon  this  case. 

{a).  The  Confession  of  Faith,  together  with  the 
Larger  and  Lesser  Catechisms  composed  by  the  rever- 
end assembly  of  divines  sitting  at  Westminster,  edition 
of  1658. 

{b).  The  Minutes  of  the  Sessions  of  the  Westminster 
Assembly,  Nov.,  1644,  to  March,  1649,  edited  for  the 
committee  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  with  an  introduc- 
tion by  Alex.  F.  Mitchell,  Edinburgh,  1874. 

{c).  The  Records  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  published  by  the  Presby- 
terian Board  of  Publication. 

{d).  The  Minutes  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  1 789-1 892. 

(/).  The  Minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York. 

ig).  The  Stenographical  Report  of  the  meeting  of 
Presbytery,  October  5th,  1891. 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


er 


{k).  The  Stenographical  Report  of  the  meeting  of 
Presbytery',  November  4th,  1891. 

{{).  The  Stenographical  Report  of  the  sessions  of 
the  General  Assembly  at  Portland,  May  26-30,  1892. 

(_/*).  The  Creeds  of  Christendom,  by  Dr.  Schaff. 

I  submit  these  documents  without  reading  in  accord- 
ance with  the  ruling  of  the  Presbytery,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  following  extract  which  I  shall  read  to  the 
court  at  this  time,  from  the  minutes  of  Presbytery,  Oct. 
5th,  1 891  : 

"Whereas,  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  at  its  meeting  in 
May  last,  on  account  of  utterances  contained  in  an  inaugural 
address,  delivered  January  20,  1891,  appointed  a  committee  to 
formulate  charges  against  the  author  of  that  address.  Rev. 
Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  and,  whereas,  since  that  action  was 
taken,  the  accused  has  supplemented  those  utterances  by  re- 
sponding to  certain  categorical  questions. 

"  Question  I.  Do  you  consider  the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the 
Reason  as  co-ordinate  sources  of  authority  ? 

Answer,     No. 

"  Or,  do  you  believe  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments to  be  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice? 

Answer.     Yes. 

"Question  II,  When  you  use  the  word  ' reason,' do  you  in- 
clude the  conscience  and  the  religious  feeling  ? 

Answer,     Yes. 

"  Question  III.  Would  you  accept  the  following  as  a  satis- 
factory definition  of  Inspiration  :  Inspiration  is  such  a  divine 
direction  as  to  secure  an  infallible  record  of  God's  revelation  in 
respect  to  both  fact  and  doctrine  ? 

Answer.     Yes. 

"  Question  IV,  Do  you  believe  the  Bible  to  be  inerrant  in  all 
matters  concerning  faith  and  practice  and  in  everything  in 
which  it  is  a  revelation  from  God,  or  a  vehicle  of  Divine  truth, 
and  that  there  are  no  errors  that  disturb  its  infallibility  in  these 
matters,  or  in  its  records  of  the  historic  events  and  institutions 
with  which  they  are  inseparably  connected  ? 

Answer.    Yes. 


88  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGG3 

"  Question  V.  Do  you  believe  that  the  miracles  recorded  in 
Scripture  are  due  to  an  extraordinary  exercise  of  divine  energy, 
either  directly  or  mediately  through  holy  men  ? 

Answer.     Yes. 

"  Question  VI.  Do  you  hold  what  is  commonly  known  as  the 
doctrine  of  a  future  probation  ?     Do  you  believe  in  purgatory  } 

Answer.     No. 

"  Question  VII.  Do  you  believe  that  the  issues  of  this  life  are 
final,  and  that  a  man  who  dies  impenitent  will  have  no  further 
opportunity  of  salvation  ? 

Answer.     Yes. 

"Question  VIII.  Is  your  theory  of  progressive  sanctification 
such  that  it  will  permit  you  to  say  that  you  believe  that  when  a 
man  dies  in  the  faith,  he  enters  the  middle  state  regenerated, 
justified  and  sinless  ? 

Answer.    Yes. 

(Signed),  C.  A.  Briggs. 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  from  the 
Minutes  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary of  the  City  of  New  York. 

E.  M.  KiNGSLEY, 

New  York,  Oct.  5,  1891.  Recorder." 

(5).  Inasmuch  as  the  prosecution  have  put  in  evi- 
dence all  the  works  of  Dr.  Briggs  quoted  in  the  first  and 
second  editions  of  the  Inaugural  Address  "  so  far  as 
they  bear  upon  this  case,"  the  defendant  puts  in  evi- 
dence all  the  works  of  Dr.  Briggs  "  in  so  far  as  they  bear 
upon  this  case."  These  are  put  in  evidence  without 
reading  in  accordance  with  the  ruling  of  the  Presbytery, 
save  the  following  testimony  which  I  shall  read  at  the 
present  time. 

{a).  Address  on  occasion  of  his  inauguration  as  Daven- 
port professor  of  Hebrew  and  the  Cognate  languages  in 
the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  October,  1876.  I  read 
from  pages  6-y : 

"  The  history  of  the  Church,  and  Christian  experience,  have 
shown  that  in  so  far  as  the  other  branches  of  theology  have 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS        gg 

■separated  themselves  from  this  fundamental  discipline,  and  in 
proportion  to  the  neglect  of  Exegetical  Theology,  the  Church 
has  fallen  into  a  dead  orthodoxy  of  scholasticism,  has  lost  its 
hold  upon  the  masses  of  mankind,  so  that  with  its  foundations 
undermined,  it  has  yielded  but  feeble  resistance  to  the  onsets  of 
infidelity.  And  it  has  ever  been  that  the  reformation  or  revival 
has  come  through  the  resort  to  the  sacred  oracles,  and  the  organ- 
ization of  a  freshly-stated  body  of  doctrine,  and  fresh  methods 
of  evangelization  derived  therefrom.  We  thus  have  reason  to 
thank  God  that  heresy  and  unbelief  so  often  drive  us  to  our 
citadel,  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and  force  us  back  to  the  impreg- 
nable fortress  of  divine  truth,  in  order  that,  depending  no  longer 
merely  upon  human  weapons  and  defences,  we  may  use  rather 
the  divine,  and  thus  reconquer  all  that  may  have  been  lost,  and 
advance  a  stage  onward  in  our  victorious  progress  toward  the 
end.  Our  adversaries  may  overthrow  our  systems  of  theology, 
our  confessions  and  catechisms,  our  church  organizations  and 
methods  of  work,  for  these  are,  after  all,  human  productions,  the 
hastily  thrown  up  out-works  of  the  truth ;  but  they  can  never 
contend  successfully  against  the  Word  of  God  that  liveth  and 
abideth  forever  (i  Peter  i.  23),  which,  though  the  heavens  fall  and 
the  earth  pass  away,  will  not  fail  in  one  jot  or  tittle  from  the  most 
complete  fulfilment  (Matt.  v.  18),  which  will  shine  in  new  beauty 
and  glory  as  its  parts  are  one  by  one  searchingly  examined,  and  • 
which  will  prove  itself  not  only  invincible,  but  all-conquering,  as 
point  after  point  is  most  hotly  contested,  until  at  last  it  claims 
universal  obedience  as  the  pure  and  faultless  mirror  of  Him  who 
is  Himself  the  brightness  of  the  Father's  glory  and  the  express 
image  of  His  person.     (2  Cor.  iii.  18  ;  Heb.  i.  3). 

Also  from  pages  15-16: 

"  Whatever  may  have  been  the  prevailing  views  in  the  church 
with  reference  to  the  Pentateuch,  Psalter,  or  any  other  book  of 
Scripture,  they  will  not  deter  the  conscientious  exegete  an  in- 
stant from  accepting  and  teaching  the  results  of  a  historical  and 
critical  study  of  the  writings  themselves.  It  is  just  here  that 
Christian  theologians  have  greatly  injured  the  cause  of  the  truth 
and  the  Bible  by  dogmatizing  in  a  department  where  it  is  least 
of  all  appropriate,  and,  indeed,  to  the  highest  degree  improper, 
as  if  our  faith  depended  at  all  upon  these  human  opinions  re- 


90  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

specting  the  Word  of  God ;  as  if  the  Scriptures  could  be  bene- 
fited by  defending  the  indefensible,  whereas  by  these  frequent 
and  shameful  defeats  and  routs  these  traditionalists  bring  dis- 
grace and  alarm  even  into  the  impregnable  fortress  itself  and 
prejudice  the  sincere  inquirer  against  the  Scriptures,  as  if  these 
were  questions  of  orthodoxy  or  piety,  or  of  allegiance  to  the 
Word  of  God  or  the  symbols  of  the  church.  Our  standards 
teach  that  'the  Word  of  God  is  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  obedi- 
ence,' and  that  'the  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  for  which 
it  ought  to  be  believed  and  obeyed,  dependeth  not  upon  the 
testimony  of  any  man  or  church,  but  wholly  upon  God,  the 
author  thereof,'  How  unorthodox  it  is,  therefore,  to  set  up  an- 
other rule  of  prevalent  opinion  as  a  stumbling-block  to  those 
who  would  accept  the  authority  of  the  Word  of  God  alone.  So 
long  as  the  Word  of  God  is  honored,  and  its  decisions  regarded 
as  final,  what  matters  it  if  a  certain  book  be  detached  from  the 
name  of  one  holy  man  and  ascribed  to  another,  or  classed  among 
those  with  unknown  authors  ?  Are  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch 
any  less  divine,  if  it  should  be  proved  that  they  are  the  product 
of  the  experience  of  God's  people  from  Moses  to  Josiah  ?  Is 
the  Psalter  to  be  esteemed  any  the  less  precious  that  the  Psalms 
should  be  regarded  as  the  product  of  many  poets  singing 
through  many  centuries  the  sacred  melodies  of  God-fearing  souls, 
responding  from  their  hearts,  as  from  a  thousand-stringed  lyre, 
to  the  touch  of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel?  Is  the  book  of  Job 
less  majestic  and  sublime,  as,  the  noblest  monument  of  sacred 
poetry,  it  stands  before  us  in  its  solitariness,  with  unknown  au- 
thor, unknown  birth-place,  and  from  an  unknown  period  of  his- 
tory? Are  the  ethical  teachings  of  the  Proverbs,  the  Song  of 
Songs,  and  Ecclesiastes,  any  the  less  solemn  and  weighty,  that 
they  may  not  be  the  product  of  Solomon's  wisdom  alone,  but  of 
the  reflection  of  many  holy  wise  men  of  different  epochs,  gathered 
about  Solomon  as  their  head  ?  Is  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
any  less  valuable  for  its  clear  presentation  of  the  fulfilment  of 
the  Old  Testament  priesthood  and  sacrifice  in  the  work  of 
Christ,  that  it  must  be  detached  from  the  name  of  Paul  ?  Let 
us  not  be  so  presumptuous,  so  irreverent  to  the  Word  of  God,  so 
unbelieving  with  reference  to  its  inherent  power  of  convincing 
and  assuring  the  seekers  for  the  truth,  as  to  condemn  any  sin- 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  gj 

cere  and  candid  inquirer  as  a  heretic  or  a  rationalist,  because  he 
may  differ  from  us  on  such  questions  as  these ! " 

{&).  Article  in  \\\&  Presbyterian  Review,  1881,  on  "  The 
Right,  Duty,  and  Limits  of  Biblical  Criticism  "  (pp.  552, 
579),  which  was  used  in  Biblical  Study  in  1884  (pp.  138, 
242,  243). 

{c).  Article  on  "  Biblical  Theology "  in  the  Presby- 
terian Review,  1882  (pp.  516,  527),  which  was  taken  up 
into  Biblical  Study  in  1884,  as  Chapter  XL  (pp.  387,  404.) 

{d).  The  Holy  Scriptures  a  Means  of  Grace,  address 
before  the  Sunday-school  teachers  of  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York  in  1883,  repeated  before  the  Reformed  Theo- 
logical Seminary  at  Lancaster,  Pa.,  and  published  as 
Chapter  XIL  of  Biblical  Study  in  1884. 

I  read  from  pages  41 1-412  : 

"  The  Inspiration  of  the  Word  of  God  is  a  highly  important 
doctrine,  but  it  must  not  be  so  greatly  emphasized  as  to  lead  us 
to  neglect  other  and  still  more  important  aspects  of  the  Bible. 
Inspiration  has  to  do  with  the  truthfulness,  reliability,  accuracy, 
and  authority  of  the  Word  of  God  ;  the  assurance  that  we  have 
that  the  instruction  contained  therein  comes  from  God.  But 
these  attributes  of  the  divine  Word  that  we  have  just  mentioned 
in  Biblical  terms  are  deeper  and  more  important  than  Inspira- 
tion. They  lie  at  the  root  of  Inspiration,  as  among  its  strongest 
evidences.  They  stand  out  as  the  most  prominent  features  of 
the  Gospel,  independent  of  the  doctrine  of  Inspiration.  They 
are  features  shared  by  the  Bible  with  the  Church  and  the 
Sacraments  which  are  not  inspired  and  are  not  infallible.  They 
are  those  attributes  that  make  the  Bible  what  it  is  in  the  life  of 
the  people  and  the  faith  of  the  church  without  raising  the  ques- 
tion of  Inspiration.  They  ascribe  to  the  Word  of  God  a  divine 
power  {6vva^i()  such  as  is  contained  in  a  seed  of  life,  the  move- 
ment of  the  light,  the  activity  of  a  sword,  a  power  that  works 
redemption,  the  supreme  means  of  grace." 

Also  from  pages  416-417: 

"The  Scriptures  are  means  of   grace  because  they  have  in 


92        THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

them  the  grace  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ,  the  grace  of  regenera- 
tion and  sanctification.  In  what,  then,  Hes  the  efficacy  of  this 
grace  ?  How  are  we  regenerated  and  sanctified  by  the  word  of 
redemption  in  Christ?  'The  Spirit  of  God  maketh  the  reading, 
but  especially  the  preaching  of  the  Word,  an  effectual  means  of 
enhghtening,  convincing,  and  humbhng  sinners,  of  driving  them 
out  of  themselves,  and  drawing  them  unto  Christ ;  of  conform- 
ing them  to  his  image,  and  subduing  them  to  his  will;  of 
strengthening  them  against  temptations  and  corruptions  ;  of 
building  them  up  in  grace,  and  establishing  their  hearts  in  holi- 
ness and  comfort  through  faith  unto  salvation.'  These  are  faith- 
ful and  noble  words.  They  ought  to  become  more  real  to  the 
experience  of  the  men  of  this  generation,  where  the  peril,  on  the 
one  hand,  is  in  laying  too  much  stress  on  doctrines  of  faith,  and, 
on  the  other,  in  overrating  maxims  of  morals.  Religion,  the  ex- 
perience of  the  divine  grace  and  growth  therein,  is  the  chief 
thing  in  the  use  of  the  Bible  and  in  Christian  life.  The  Holv 
Scriptures  are  means  of  grace,  but  means  that  have  to  be  applied 
by  a  divine  force  to  make  them  efficacious.  There  must  be  an 
immediate  contact  and  energetic  working  upon  the  readers  and 
hearers  and  students  of  the  Word  by  a  divine  power.  The  Word 
of  God  does  not  work  ex  opere  operaio — that  is,  by  its  mere  use. 
It  is  not  the  mere  reading,  the  mere  study  of  the  Bible,  that  is 
efficacious.  It  is  not  the  Bible  in  the  house  or  in  the  hands.  It 
is  not  the  Bible  read  by  the  eyes  and  heard  by  the  ears.  It 
is  not  the  Bible  committed  to  memory  and  recited  word  for 
word.  It  is  not  the  Bible  expounded  by  the  teacher  and  ap- 
prehended by  the  mind  of  the  scholar.  All  these  are  but  ex- 
ternal forms  of  the  Word  which  enwrap  the  spiritual  substance, 
the  grace  of  redemption.  The  casket  contains  the  precious 
jewels.  It  must  be  opened  that  their  lustre  and  beauty  may 
charm  us.  The  shell  contains  the  nut.  It  must  be  cracked  or 
we  cannot  eat  it.  The  pitcher  contains  the  water ;  but  it  must  be 
poured  out  and  drunk  to  satisfy  thirst.  The  Word  of  God  is 
effectual  only  when  it  has  become  dynamic,  and  wrought  vital 
and  organic  changes,  entering  into  the  depths  of  the  heart, 
assimilating  itself  to  the  spiritual  necessities  of  our  nature, 
transforming  life  and  character.  This  is  the  purpose  of  the  grace 
which  the  Bible  contains.  This  is  the  power  of  grace  that  the 
Bible  exhibits,  in  holding  forth  to  us  Jesus  Christ  the  Saviour. 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  93 

This  can  be  accomplished  in  us  only  by  the  activity  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  working  in  and  through  the  Scriptures  in  their  use." 

{e).  Article,  "A  Critical  Study  of  the  History  of  the 
Higher  Criticism,"  in  the  Presbyteria?i  Review,  1883.  ^ 
read  from  pages  129-130: 

"  We  have  not  one  narrative,  but  a  fourfold  narrative  of  the 
origin  of  the  old  covenant  religion  coming  down  to  us  from  the 
Mosaic  age,  as  we  have  a  fourfold  gospel  giving  the  narrative  of 
the  origin  of  the  new  Covenant  religion.  There  is,  indeed,  a 
remarkable  correspondence  in  these  four  types  or  points  of  view. 
The  second  Elohist  may  be  compared  to  Mark,  the  Jehovist  with 
Matthew,  the  first  Elohist  with  Luke,  and  the  Deuteronomist 
with  John.  The  difference  between  the  Pentateuch  and  the 
gospels  is  that  the  four  narratives  of  the  Pentateuch  have  been 
compacted  by  an  inspired  Redactor ;  whereas  the  gospels  have 
to  be  harmonized  by  uninspired  teachers  in  the  Church.  How 
this  unity  in  variety  strengthens  the  credibihty  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch !  As  the  four  gospels  contain  the  gospel  of  Christ,  so 
the  narratives  of  the  Pentateuch  contain  the  law  of  Moses.  As 
our  Saviour  is  set  forth  by  the  evangelist  as  the  mediator  of  the 
new  covenant,  Moses  is  set  forth  by  the  narratives  of  the 
Pentateuch  as  the  mediator  of  the  old  covenant. 

"  (2).  The  Pentateuch  does  not  give  us  one  Mosaic  code,  but 
three  codes  of  Mosaic  legislation,  a  judicial  code,  a  people's 
code,  and  a  priest-code,  contained  in  the  Jehovistic,  Elohistic, 
and  Deuteronomic  narratives,  somewhat  as  the  gospels  present 
us  the  discourses  of  Jesus  in  the  varied  types  peculiar  to 
Matthew,  to  Luke,  and  to  John." 

(/).  Address  at  the  beginning  of  the  term  of  Union 
Theological  Seminary,  September,  1883,  on  Interpreta- 
tion of  Holy  Scripture,  published  as  Chapter  X.  of 
Biblical  Study,  in  1884.     I  read  from  page  359: 

"  The  rationalists  sink  the  unity  in  the  variety ;  the  scholastics 
destroy  the  variety  for  the  sake  of  the  unity.  The  true  evan- 
gelical position  is,  that  the  Bible  is  a  vast  organism  in  which  the 
unity  springs  from  an  amazing  variety.  The  unity  is  not  that  of 
a  mass  of  rocks  or  a  pool  of  water.     It  is  the  unity  that  one  finds 


94  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

in  the  best  works  of  God.  It  is  the  unity  of  the  ocean  where 
every  wave  has  its  individuality  of  life  and  movement.  It  is  the 
unity  of  the  continent,  in  which  mountains  and  rivers,  valleys 
and  uplands,  flowers  and  trees,  birds  and  insects,  animal  and 
human  life  combine  to  distinguish  it  as  a  magnificent  whole 
from  other  continents.  It  is  the  unity  of  the  heaven,  where 
star  differs  from  star  in  form,  color,  order,  movement,  size,  and 
importance,  but  all  declare  the  glory  of  God." 

And  also  365-366 : 

"It  was  this  principle,  'that  the  supreme  judge,  by  which  all 
controversies  of  religion  are  to  be  determined,  and  all  decrees  of 
councils,  opinions  of  ancient  writers,  doctrines  of  men,  and 
private  spirits  are  to  be  examined,  and  in  whose  sentence  we  are 
to  rest,  can  be  no  other  but  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the 
Scripture,'  that  made  the  Puritan  faith  and  life  invincible. 

''O  that  their  descendants  had  maintained  it!  If  they  had 
laid  less  stress  upon  the  minor  matters — the  order  of  the  decrees, 
the  extent  of  the  atonement,  the  nature  of  imputation,  the  mode 
of  inspiration,  and  the  divine  right  of  presbytery, — and  had 
adhered  to  this  essential  principle  of  their  fathers,  the  history 
of  Puritanism  would  have  been  higher,  grander,  and  more  suc- 
cessful. We  would  not  now  be  threatened  with  the  ruin  that 
has  overtaken  all  its  unfaithful  predecessors  in  their  turn.  Let 
their  children  return  to  it ;  let  them  cling  to  it  as  the  most 
precious  achievement  of  British  Christianity ;  let  them  raise  it 
on  their  banners,  and  advance  with  it  into  the  conflicts  of  the 
day;  let  them  plant  it  on  every  hill  and  in  every  valley  through- 
out the  world  ;  let  them  not  only  give  the  Bible  into  the  hands 
of  men  and  translate  it  into  their  tongues,  but  let  them  put  it 
into  their  hearts,  and  translate  it  into  their  lives.  Then  will 
Biblical  interpretation  reach  its  culmination  in  practical  inter- 
pretation, in  the  experience  and  life  of  mankind." 

(g).  Biblical  Study,  first  edition,  1884,  second,  third, 
and  fourth  editions  in  subsequent  years.  I  read  from 
pages  136-137: 

"  The  principles  on  which  the  canon  of  Scripture  is  to  be  de- 
termined are,  therefore,  these :  (i).  The  testimony  of  the  church. 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF   PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  95 

going  back  by  tradition  and  written  documents  to  primitive 
times,  presents  probable  evidence  to  all  men  that  the  Scriptures, 
recognized  as  of  divine  authority  and  canonical  by  such  general 
consent,  are  indeed  what  they  are  claimed  to  be. 

"  (2).  The  Scriptures  themselves,  in  their  pure  and  holy  char- 
acter, satisfying  the  conscience  ;  their  beauty,  harmony,  and 
majesty  satisfying  the  aesthetic  taste  ;  their  simplicity  and  fidelity 
to  truth,  together  with  their  exalted  conceptions  of  man,  of  God, 
and  of  history,  satisfying  the  reason  and  the  intellect ;  their  piety 
and  devotion  to  the  one  God,  and  their  revelation  of  redemption, 
satisfying  the  religious  feeling  and  deepest  needs  of  mankind — 
all  conspire  to  more  and  more  convince  that  they  are  indeed 
sacred  and  divine  books. 

"  (3).  The  Spirit  of  God  bears  witness  by  and  with  the  particu- 
lar writing,  or  part  of  writing,  in  the  heart  of  the  believer, 
removing  every  doubt  and  assuring  the  soul  of  its  possession  of 
the  truth  of  God,  the  rule  and  guide  of  the  life. 

"  (4).  The  Spirit  of  God  bears  witness  by  and  with  the  several 
writings  in  such  a  manner  as  to  assure  the  believer  in  the  study 
of  them  that  they  are  the  several  parts  of  one  complete  divine 
revelation,  each  writing  having  its  own  appropriate  and  indis- 
pensable place  and  importance  in  the  organism  of  the  canon. 

"  (5).  The  Spirit  of  God  bears  witness  to  the  church  as  an 
organized  body  of  such  believers,  through  their  free  consent  in 
various  communities  and  countries  and  centuries,  to  this  unity 
and  variety  of  the  Scriptures  as  the  one  complete  and  perfect 
canon  of  the  divine  word  to  the  church. 

"  And  thus  the  human  testimony,  the  external  evidence,  attains 
its  furthest  possible  limit  as  probable  evidence,  bringing  the 
inquirer  to  the  Scriptures  with  a  high  and  reverent  esteem  of 
them,  when  the  internal  evidence  exerts  its  powerful  influence 
upon  his  soul,  and  at  length  the  divine  testimony  lays  hold  of 
his  entire  nature  and  convinces  and  assures  him  of  the  truth  of 
God  and  causes  him  to  share  in  the  consensus  of  the  Christian 
church." 

And  also  on  page  222 : 

"There  are  large  numbers  of  the  biblical  books  that  are 
anonymous:  e.g.,  the  Pentateuch,  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  Kings, 


96  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther,  Job,  Jonah,  Ruth,  many  of 
the  Psalms,  Lamentations,  and  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

"Tradition  has  assigned  authors  for  all  of  these.  It  is  also 
maintained  that  the  internal  statements  of  -some  of  these  books 
point  to  their  authorship  by  certain  persons.  These  latter  are 
questions  of  interpretation.  The  vast  weight  of  the  Biblical 
scholarship  of  the  present  day  is,  however,  with  reference  to  the 
books  mentioned  above,  against  any  such  interpretation  of  them 
as  discovers  authorship  in  their  statements.  Such  interpretation 
is  forced,  and  is  regarded  as  based  on  preconceptions  and  dog-^ 
matic  considerations." 

Also  on  pages  227-228 : 

"It  is  now  conceded  by  most  critics  that  the  Pentateuch  is 
composed  of  four  separate  historical  narratives,  each  with  its  code 
of  legislation,  and  that  these  have  been  compacted  into  their 
present  form  by  one  or  more  editors.  The  Baba  Bathra  makes 
Moses  the  editor  or  author  of  the  Pentateuch.  If  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Pentateuch  depends  upon  the  sole  Mosaic  author- 
ship, then  criticism  has  come  into  irreconcilable  conflict  with  its 
inspiration.  But  this  is  only  a  presumption  of  tradition.  The 
inspiration  and  authority  of  the  Pentateuch  are  as  safe,  yes, 
safer,  with  the  view  that  these  books  were  compiled,  as  were  the 
other  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  question  as 
to  the  authenticity  of  the  Bible  is  whether  God  is  its  author ; 
whether  it  is  inspired.  This  cannot  be  determined  by  the  higher 
criticism  in  any  way,  for  the  higher  criticism  has  only  to  do  with 
human  authorship,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  divine  author- 
ship, which  is  determined  on  different  principles,  as  we  have 
seen  in  our  study  of  the  canon." 

And  also  on  pages  240-241  : 

"There  are  chronological,  geographical,  and  other  circum- 
stantial inconsistencies  and  errors  which  we  should  not  hesitate 
to  acknowledge.  These  errors  arise  in  the  department  of  exe- 
gesis more  than  in  higher  criticism.  It  does  not  follow,  however, 
that  circumstantial,  incidental  errors,  such  as  might  arise  from 
the  inadvertence  of  lack  of  information  of  an  author,  are  any  im- 
peachment of  his  credibility.    If  we  distinguish  between  revela- 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS        97 

tion  and  inspiration,  and  yet  insist  upon  inerrancy  with  reference 
to  the  latter  as  well  as  the  former,  we  virtually  do  away  with  the 
distinction  ;  for  no  mere  man  can  escape  altogether  human  errors 
unless  divine  revelation  set  even  the  most  familiar  things  in  a 
new  and  infallible  light,  and  also  so  control  him  that  he  cannot 
make  a  slip  of  the  eye  or  the  hand,  a  fault  in  the  imagination,  in 
conception,  in  reasoning,  in  rhetorical  figure,  or  in  grammatical 
expression ;  and  indeed  so  raise  him  above  his  fellows  that  he 
shall  see  through  all  their  errors  in  science  and  philosophy  as 
well  as  theology,  and  anticipate  the  discoveries  in  all  branches 
of  knowledge  by  thousands  of  years.  Errors  of  inadvertence  in 
minor  details,  where  the  author's  position  and  character  are  well 
known,  do  not  destroy  his  credibility  as  a  witness  in  any  litera- 
ture or  any  court  of  justice.  It  is  not  to  be  presumed  that  divine 
inspiration  lifted  the  author  above  his  age  any  more  than  was 
necessary  to  convey  the  divine  revelation  and  the  divine  instruc- 
tion with  infallible  certainty  to  mankind." 

{h).  American  Presbyterianism,  published  in  1885.  I 
read  from  pages  9-1 1  : 

"  Presbyterianism  has  been  too  often  represented  by  spurious 
types  which  were  not  born  of  Presbyterianism,  but  were  the  chil- 
dren of  Anabaptism.  The  Presbyterian  principle  recognizes  the 
supremacy  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  Scriptures,  but  declines  to 
imprison  his  divine  energy  in  its  external  form  and  letter.  Pres- 
byterianism did  not  reject  the  authority  of  the  papal  church  and 
the  prelatical  church,  in  order  to  establish  the  authority  of  a 
Presbyterian  church.  It  did  not  make  the  Bible  supreme  as  a 
book,  but  as  the  living  word  of  the  living  God.  It  did  not 
bind  itself  to  a  written  book,  but  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  uses 
the  Bible  (written  or  spoken)  as  a  means  of  grace.  Presbyte- 
rianism recognizes  the  enthroned  Christ  as  the  source  of  Christi- 
anity to  every  age.  The  Word  of  God  is  the  'sceptre  of  his 
kingdom,'  and  divinely  called  presbyters  are  his  officers,  com- 
missioned to  govern  the  church  with  his  authority  and  in  his 
fear. 

"  It  never  was  a  legitimate  Presbyterian  principle  to  confine 
worship,  doctrine,  and  practice  to  the  express  command  of 
Scripture.    It  was  a  perversion  of  the  Presbyterian  principle 


98  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

which  required  a  '  Thus  saith  the  Lord '  for  every  precept  and 
every  practice.  This  was  a  mark  of  the  separating  Anabaptists 
and  Brownists,  and  not  of  the  Presbyterians.  Presbyterians 
follow  not  only  what  is  '  expressly  set  down  in  Scripture,'  but 
also  what '  by  good  and  necessary  consequence  may  be  deduced 
from  Scripture.'  The  teachings  of  Scripture  are  far-reaching 
and  vastly  comprehensive, 

"  We  acknowledge  the  inward  illumination  of  the  Spirit  of 
God  to  be  necessary  for  the  saving  understanding  of  such  things 
as  are  revealed  in  the  Word  ;  and  there  are  some  circumstances 
concerning  the  worship  of  God  and  government  of  the  Church, 
common  to  human  actions  and  societies,  which  are  to  be  ordered 
by  the  light  of  nature  and  Christian  prudence,  according  to  the 
general  rules  of  the  Word,  which  are  always  to  be  observed." 
(Westminster  Confession,  I.,  6.) 

"  The  Holy  Spirit  guides  in  the  application  of  the  principles 
of  Scripture  to  all  the  circumstances  of  Christianity  in  the  suc- 
cessive ages  of  the  Church.  The  light  of  nature  and  Christian 
prudence  do  not  conflict  with  the  teaching  of  Scripture,  but 
take  their  place  in  subordination  to  the  voice  of  the  Spirit  in  the 
Scripture,  and  co-operate  for  the  establishment  of  Christianity 
in  the  world.  Those  who  refuse  to  recognize  the  use  of  the 
light  of  nature  and  Christian  prudence  in  the  circumstantials  of 
religion,  and  restrict  Presbyterian  order  and  worship  and  life  to 
the  express  words  of  Scripture,  have  abandoned  Presbyterian 
principles,  and  have  gone  over  to  the  side  of  the  separating 
Anabaptists  and  Brownists  of  the  seventeenth  century." 

(/).  Messia?iic  Prophecy,  published  in  1886.  I  read 
from  page  6y  as  follows : 

"  The  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  into  four  distinct  narratives, 
with  their  distinct  codes  of  legislation,  is  the  result  of  a  century 
of  study  by  the  most  famous  critics  of  the  age.  There  are  slight 
differences  of  opinion  in  the  analysis  at  some  points ;  but  these 
are  chiefly  at  the  seams  which  bind  the  narratives  together,  and 
are  due  to  the  editor's  work,  who  in  his  efforts  to  make  the 
entire  composition  as  harmonious  and  symmetrical  as  possible, 
sometimes  obscured  the  signs  of  difference.  But  the  concord  of 
critics  in  the  work  of  analysis  as  a  whole  is  wonderful,  in  view  of 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  99 

the  difBculties  that  beset  the  work  of  higher  criticism.  The  few 
objectors  among  Hebrew  scholars  display  their  own  familiarity 
with  the  practical  work  of  criticism  when  they  overlook  these 
solid  results  and  point  to  the  difficulties  as  evidences  that  the 
problem  has  not  been  solved.  The  differences  of  opinion  among 
practical  critics,  and  the  difficulties  in  the  analysis,  are  where 
they  ought  to  be  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case.  Instead  of 
disprovmg  the  work  of  criticism,  they  are  therefore  an  indirect 
evidence  of  its  correctness.  The  differences  and  difficulties  dis- 
appear one  after  another  as  the  investigation  advances.  The 
evidences  for  the  analysis  into  four  narratives  are— (i)  Differ- 
ences in  use  of  words  and  phrases  ;  (2)  differences  in  style  and 
methods  of  composition ;  (3)  differences  in  point  of  view  and 
representations  of  religious  institutions,  doctrines,  and  morals." 

Also  on  page  192  : 

"  The  unity  of  Isaiah  is  still  stoutly  defended  by  many  scholars, 
who  prefer  to  adhere  to  the  traditional  view  with  all  its  difficul- 
ties, rather  than  follow  the  methods  of  the  higher  criticism,  and 
accept  its  results.  The  same  essential  principles  are  involved  in 
the  literary  analysis  of  Isaiah  as  in  the  literary  analysis  of  the 
Pentateuch,  the  Psalter,  and  the  Book  of  Proverbs  and  the 
Wisdom  literature  generally.  Tradition  has  ascribed  these  groups 
of  writings  to  the  four  greatest  names  in  Hebrew  literary  history. 
But  literary  and  historical  criticism  in  all  these  cases  has  dis- 
closed groups  of  writings  of  different  authors  and  different  times. 
This  literary  analysis  has  disturbed  many  traditional  opinions 
that  seem  to  have  had  no  other  origin  than  pure  conjecture ;  but 
it  has  enabled  us  to  understand  the  historic  origin  of  the  several 
writings,  has  given  the  key  to  their  correct  interpretation,  and 
has  shown  the  wondrous  variety  of  form  and  content  in  Hebrew 
literature.  The  development  of  the  inspired  literature  and 
theology  is  now  beginning  to  disclose  itself  with  a  wealth  of 
meaning  which  was  unknown  to  those  who  in  an  uncritical  age 
imposed  their  conjectures  upon  the  word  of  God,  and  which 
escapes  those  who  allow  themselves  to  be  blinded  by  these 
human  conjectures  and  traditions  to  the  real  facts  and  truths  of 
the  Scriptures  themselves." 

And  also  page  408  : 

"  This  wondrous  prophecy,  as  it  has  expanded  in  three  succes- 


100  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

sive  editions,  finds  its  only  appropriate  historical  situation  in  the 
exile.  Looking  forward  from  thence  it  builds  on  all  the  pre- 
vious prophets,  and  transcends  them  all  in  the  bulk  and 
grandeur  of  its  representations.  It  is  related  to  the  Book  of 
Ezekiel  as  the  inner  to  the  outer;  as  the  essential  spirit  and 
substance  to  its  formal  envelope.  It  seems  to  us  that  Ezekiel 
could  never  have  written  his  apocalypse  if  he  had  seen  or  heard 
of  the  doctrines  of  Isa.  xl.-lxvi.  It  is  indeed  not  at  all  strange 
that  some  Jewish  Rabbins  and  some  modern  scholars  have 
doubted  the  inspiration  of  Ezekiel,  who  differs  so  greatly  from 
the  Mosaic  codes  on  the  one  side,  and  from  Isa.  xl.-lxvi.  on  the 
other.  The  difficulty  is  resolved  only  when  we  see  that  Ezekiel 
stands  on  a  lower  stage  in  the  development  of  the  Messianic 
idea  than  the  great  unknown,  who  had  Ezekiel  and  Jeremiah, 
the  exile  and  the  body  of  ancient  prophecy  behind  him ;  and 
thus  could  grasp  the  whole  doctrine  of  his  predecessors,  and 
rise  from  it  to  greater  heights  of  prediction." 

(y).  Whither  ?  published  in  1889,  second  and  third  edi- 
tions, 1890.     I  read  from  page  11  as  follows : 

"None  of  the  older  divines  gave  the  human  reason  its  proper 
place  in  religion  and  theology.  They  were  all  too  much  involved 
in  the  older  methods  of  exegesis  which  sought  to  prove  every- 
thing possible  from  the  Bible.  It  was  necessary  that  there  should 
be  a  long  conflict  with  Deism  in  order  to  eliminate  Natural  Theol- 
ogy as  a  distinct  theological  discipline ;  and  then  the  long  con- 
flict with  Rationalism  in  order  to  establish  the  place  of  Specula- 
tive Theology.  The  Bible  does  not  war  against  the  truths  of 
nature,  of  the  reason,  or  of  history.  It  rather  concentrates  their 
instruction  in  its  central  Revelation. 

"  The  Scriptures  shine  with  heavenly  light  in  the  midst  of  the 
sources  of  human  knowledge.  They  cannot  be  understood  alone 
by  themselves.  It  is  probable  that  the  reason  why  the  Scriptures 
have  not  been  more  completely  mastered  in  our  time,  is  that  the 
divine  truth  revealed  in  other  spheres  has  not  been  brought 
into  proper  relation  with  the  Scriptures.  The  Sacred  Scriptures 
are  for  the  whole  world  and  for  all  time.  As  man  grows  in 
the  knowledge  of  nature,  of  himself  and  of  history,  he  will  grow- 
in  the  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures." 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BKIGGS  IQl 

And  also  on  pages  285-287: 

"  The  future  life  has  been  a  blank  or  else  a  terror  to  most 
Protestants  and  the  comfortable  hopes  inspired  by  the  New- 
Testament  have  not  been  enjoyed.  The  study  of  the  future 
state  in  recent  times  has  exposed  the  faults  of  the  older  dogma- 
ticians.  It  is  shown  that  the  doctrine  of  a  private  judgment  at 
death  has  no  support  in  the  Scriptures  or  the  Creeds,  and  that  it 
obstructed  and  obscured  the  doctrine  of  the  dies  true,  the  ulti- 
mate judgment  of  the  world.  It  has  shown  that  the  current 
theology  confuses  and  confounds  the  hell  and  heaven  of  the 
middle  state  and  the  hell  and  heaven  of  the  ultimate  state  after 
the  day  of  judgment,  and  it  has  accordingly  made  the  middle 
state  more  of  a  reality  to  many  minds.  It  has  held  up  the  light 
of  Christian  ethics  and  shown  that  the  doctrine  of  immediate 
sanctification  at  death  is  contrary  to  the  Scripture  and  the 
Creeds,  and  has  filled  the  middle  state  with  ethical  contents  as  a 
place  for  Christian  sanctification.  It  has  called  attention  to  the 
fact  that  Jesus  Christ  knows  of  but  one  unpardonable  sin,  the 
sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  asks  what  is  its  significance  in 
view  of  the  middle  state.  It  has  revived  the  doctrine  of  the 
Apostles'  Creed,  of  the  descent  of  Jesus  into  hades,  His  preach- 
ing to  the  imprisoned  spirits  and  His  redemption  of  souls  from 
the  ancient  abode  of  the  dead.  It  has  called  attention  to  the 
inconsistency  into  which  the  Church  has  drifted  in  the  new  doc- 
trine of  the  universal  salvation  of  infants,  and  has  demanded  that 
this  doctrine  shall  be  considered  in  some  way,  so  as  to  correspond 
with  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  the  order  of  salvation.  It  has  so 
pressed  the  awfulness  of  the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  damnation  of 
the  heathen  world,  exceeding  the  Christian  world  by  hundreds  of 
millions,  that  the  older  doctrine  of  the  damnation  of  all  heathen 
has  been  abandoned,  and  efforts  have  been  made  to  find  some 
mode  of  relief  by  which  some  or  many  of  the  heathen  may  be 
saved  by  the  grace  of  God.  All  these  qtfestions  are  now  in  dis- 
pute. Men  are  seeking  relief  by  the  doctrine  of  the  extension  of 
redemption  into  the  middle  state,  by  conditional  immortality, 
by  annihilation  of  the  wicked,  and  by  reaction  to  the  Roman 
Catholic  doctrine  of  purgatory.  The  interest  in  these  questions 
of  the  future  life  is  widespread  and  is  increasing.  There  must  be 
liberty  of  investigation  and  room  for  differences  in  the  transition 


102  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

period  through  which  we  are  passing.  The  results  will  be  of  in- 
calculable advantage  to  the  Church— for  when  the  future  life  has 
become  more  real,  more  certain,  more  fixed,  in  the  hopes  and 
anticipations  of  men,  this  life  will  gain  its  significance  as  a  prep- 
aration and  vestibule  of  the  better  life  to  come.  Christians  will 
live  in  hope,  expectation,  and  desire,  and  this  hope  will  work 
mightily  in  the  consecration  and  sanctification  of  men." 

(k).  Article,  "  Redemption  after  Death,''  in  the  Maga- 
zine of  Christian  Literature,  December,  1889.  I  read 
from  pages  112-114,  as  follows: 

"  But  justification  by  faith  belongs  to  the  earlier  stages  of  re- 
demption. All  those  who  are  justified  are  also  sanctified.  No 
one  can  be  ultimately  and  altogether  redeemed  without  sancti- 
fication. 

"  It  is  necessary  that  believers  should  have  the  indwellmg 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  they  should  be  'more  and  more 
quickened  and  strengthened  in  all  saving  graces  to  the  practice 
of  true  holiness,  without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord,'  and 
'so  the  saints  grow  in  grace,  perfecting  holiness  in  the  fear  of 
God.'  The  doctrine  of  immediate  sanctification  is  a  heresy 
which  has  always  been  rejected  by  orthodox  Protestants. 

"The  Westminster  Confession  definitely  states  :  'This  sancti- 
fication is  throughout,  yet  imperfect  in  this  life.'  If  imperfect  in 
this  life  for  all  believers,  there  is  no  other  state  in  which  it  can 
be  perfected  save  in  the  Intermediate  State.  The  Intermediate 
State  is  therefore  for  all  believers  without  exception  a  state  for 
their  sanctification.  They  are  there  trained  in  the  school  of 
Christ,  and  are  prepared  for  the  Christian  perfection  which  they 
must  attain  ere  the  judgment  day. 

"  There  are  some  theologians  who  persuade  themselves  that 
they  can  believe  in  the  immediate  justification  and  the  immedi- 
ate sanctification  of  infants,  of  incapables  and  of  heathen  adults, 
in  the  change  of  death,  in  that  supreme  moment  of  transition 
from  this  life  to  the  Middle  State.  Such  a  theory  may  be  stated 
in  words,  but  it  is  inconceivable  in  fact.  What  a  transformation 
would  take  place  in  the  intellectual  and  moral  powers  of  infants, 
incapables,  and  the  dark-minded  heathen  !  Such  a  metamorphosis 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  JoS 

is  not  taught  in  the  Scriptures  or  the  Creeds.     It  would  violate 
the  intellectual  and  moral  constitution  of  man. 

"  Those  who  believe  it  may  claim  that  all  things  are  possible 
to  God.  But  it  might  be  said  that  it  is  just  as  possible  for  God 
to  use  the  water  of  Baptism,  ex  opere  operaio,  to  work  regenera- 
tion, as  Sacramentarians  believe ;  and  it  is  just  as  possible  that 
the  elements  of  the  Lord's  Supper  may  be  changed  into  the  real 
body  and  blood  of  our  Lord,  as  the  Roman  Catholics  believe. 
These  divine  transformations  are  just  as  possible  to  God  and  just 
as  credible  to  the  mind  of  man  as  the  immediate  transformation 
of  a  little  babe  into  a  perfectly  holy  man  in  the  image  of  Jesus 
Christ;  or  of  the  instantaneous  accomplishment  of  the  entire 
ordo  salutis  for  an  idiot  in  the  very  moment  of  death.  All  such 
magical  doctrines  are  subversive  of  the  entire  structure  of  Prot- 
estantism. They  belong  to  an  age  of  magic,  and  have  no  place 
in  an  age  of  Reason  and  Faith. 

"  It  was  a  keen  thrust  of  M5hler  that  Protestantism  without  a 
purgatory  must  either  let  men  enter  heaven  stained  with  sin,  or 
else  think  of  an  immediate  magical  transformation  at  death,  by 
which  sin  mechanically  and  violently  falls  off  from  us  with  the 
body.  Hase  justly  replied  that  Protestantism  would  not  accept 
this  dilemma,  and  that  Protestant  Theology  taught  that  the 
divine  grace  was  operative,  and  men  capable  of  moral  develop- 
ment after  death.  This  view  is  the  established  opinion  in  Ger- 
man Theology.  Dorner,  Martensen,  Kahnis,  and  other  divines 
teach  that  there  must  be  a  growth  in  sanctification  in  the  Middle 
State.  All  Protestants  must  accept  this  doctrine  or  they  are 
sure  to  be  caught  in  the  inconsistency  of  magical,  mechanical, 
and  unethical  opinions.  This  opinion  is  commonly  held  by 
Protestants  in  Great  Britain.  Why  should  Protestants  in 
America  lag  behind  their  brethren  in  Europe }  We  have  been 
caught  in  the  snares  of  recent  errors.  Let  us  break  through  the 
snares  and  re-establish  ourselves  in  the  ancient  Christian  doc- 
trine of  the  Middle  State. 


"  The  doctrine  of  immediate  justification  and  sanctification  at 
death  involves  the  conceit  that  the  child  who  dies  in  infancy  a 
few  moments  after  birth  is  immediately  justified  and  sanctified, 
receives  saving  faith  and  all  the  Christian  graces  in  an  instant; 
while  his  brother,  who  lives  in  this  world,  is  not  justified  until 


104      THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

he  reaches  the  age  in  which  he  can  exercise  personal  faith,  and 
then  he  has  all  the  struggles  of  life  to  undergo  until  he  reaches 
the  limits  of  human  life  without  the  comforts  of  sanctification, 
which  he  cannot  receive  until  death.  If  this  were  so,  then 
blessed  are  those  who  die  in  infancy,  and  thus  outstrip  their 
fellows  in  the  Christian  race.  Vastly  better  to  be  born  to  die, 
than  to  be  born  to  live  in  this  uncertain  world.  What  parent 
would  not  prefer  to  lay  all  his  children  in  an  early  grave,  assured 
of  their  salvation,  rather  than  expose  them  to  the  dreadful  risks 
of  life  and  the  possibility  of  eternal  damnation  ? 

"  Regeneration  is  an  act  of  God,  and  from  its  very  idea  is  in- 
stantaneous, for  it  is  the  production  of  a  new  life  in  man.  Re- 
generation is  only  one  of  the  terms  used  in  the  New  Testament 
to  describe  this  beginning  of  Christian  life.  Resurrection  is 
more  frequently  used.  Creation  is  also  employed.  Effectual 
Calling  was  preferred  by  the  Westminster  divines.  All  these 
terms  indicate  a  divine  originating  act.  Regeneration  is  always 
such,  and  cannot  be  otherwise. 

"  But  sanctification  is  the  grov/th  of  that  life  from  birth  to  full 
manhood,  into  the  likeness  of  Christ.  It  is  always  in  this  world 
a  growth  ;  it  is  incomplete  with  the  best  of  men  at  death.  Does 
it  change  its  nature  then  ?  Shall  the  little  babe,  the  idiot,  the 
seeker  after  God  among  the  heathen,  the  Roman  Catholic,  the 
Protestant,  and  the  saints  of  all  ages,  all  alike  in  an  instant  leap 
over  this  period  of  growth,  however  different  their  stage  of  prog- 
ress may  be  .''  Shall  a  babe  become  a  man  in  an  instant?  Shall 
a  savage  become  a  philosopher  in  a  moment  ?  Shall  a  little  boy 
become  a  John  Calvin,  and  a  John  Calvin  be  conformed  to  the 
image  of  Christ,  all  at  a  divine  creative  word  ?  Then  the  differ- 
ence between  regeneration  and  sanctification  has  disappeared 
for  the  vast  majority  of  the  redeemed. 

"  If  regeneration  and  sanctification  are  one  act,  how  can  we 
distinguish  the  intervening  act  of  justification  ?  and  if  regenera- 
tion, justification,  and  sanctification  may  all  be  one  at  death,  why 
not  in  this  life,  as  the  Plymouth  Brethren  teach  ?  Why  was  the 
world  turned  upside  down  at  the  Protestant  Reformation  m  order 
to  discriminate  justification  by  faith  from  sanctification  if,  after 
all  these  centuries  of  Protestantism,  they  are  really  identical  for 
the  vast  majority  of  our  race,  and  are  only  to  be  distinguished  in 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  105 

those  in  Christian  lands  who  live  to  maturity  and  become  true 
Christians  ?  " 

(/).  The  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason,  1891,  con- 
sisting of  an  address  at  the  opening  of  the  term  of  the 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  September  19,  1889,  on 
^'  Biblical  History,"  an  address  delivered  at  Wellesley 
College,  and  before  the  American  Institute  of  Sacred 
Literature,  at  Chicago,    on   the   "  Messianic   Ideal,"  in 

1890,  and  several  lectures  delivered  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  and  elsewhere,  in  order  to  set  forth  the  defend- 
ant's views  of  the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason,  in 

1891.  I  read  from  pages  63-64 : 

"  When  we  say  that  there  are  historically  three  great  fountains 
of  divine  authority,  we  do  not  in  the  statement  either  co-ordi- 
nate these  fountains  or  subordinate  them,  or  in  any  way  define 
the  relation  between  them.  We  state  a  fundamental  fact  upon 
which  Christianity  as  a  whole  is  agreed.  If  there  be  a  seeming 
discord,  it  is  due  to  ignorance,  misconception,  or  misrepresenta- 
tion. It  is  conceivable  that  the  three  fountains  might  be  re- 
garded as  co-ordinate.  If  any  one  holds  such  an  opinion,  we  do 
not. 

"  The  Christian  world  is  divided  into  three  great  parties.  The 
Churchmen  have  exalted  the  Church  above  the  Bible  and  the 
Reason.  The  Rationalists  have  exalted  the  Reason  above  the 
Bible  and  the  Church.  The  Evangelical  party  have  exalted  the 
Bible  above  the  Church  and  the  Reason  ;  but  no  party,  so  far  as 
we  know,  has  made  Bible,  Church,  and  Reason  co-ordinate,  that 
is,  on  the  same  level,  in  the  same  order,  of  equal,  independent 
authority. 

"  The  Roman  Catholic  does  not  deny  that  God  speaks  to  men 
through  the  Reason  and  the  Bible  ;  but  he  subordinates  the  Bible 
and  the  Reason  to  the  authority  of  the  Church.  Evangelicals 
do  not  deny  that  there  is  divine  authority  in  the  Church  and 
the  Reason,  but  they  subordinate  Church  and  Reason  to  the 
Bible.  A  Rationalist  may  deny  that  there  is  divine  authority 
in  the  Bible  or  the  Church,  but  all  that  is  essential  to  Ration- 


106  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

alism  is  the  maintenance  of  the  supreme  authority  of  the 
Reason. 

"  The  relation  of  Bible,  Church,  and  Reason  as  seats,  sources, 
fountains,  media,  channels  of  divine  authority,  is  one  of  the 
most  difficult  of  questions  ;  but  that  each  one  of  them  is  in  some 
measure  such  a  seat,  source,  and  fountain,  is  not  an  open  ques- 
tion in  any  of  the  historic  churches  in  Christendom.  The  con- 
cord of  Christendom  is  that  the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the 
Reason  are  the  three  great  fountains  of  divine  authority.  The 
discord  of  Christendom  is  as  to  their  relative  place  and  value. 
It  should  be  the  aim  of  all  earnest  men  to  diminish  the  discord 
so  far  as  possible  by  avoiding  extreme  statements,  and  by  de- 
termining carefully  how  far  the  three  fountains  share  alike  in 
divine  authority  and  how  far  each  one  has  certain  features 
which  discriminate  it  from  the  others. 

"  The  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason  are  the  three  great 
fountains  of  divine  authority,  and  yet  we  claim  that  the  Bible 
alone  is  the  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ;  the  conscience 
alone  speaks  the  categorical  imperative  within  the  man  ;  the 
Church  alone  administers  sacramental  grace.  The  Bible,  the 
Church,  and  the  Reason  are  all  alike  dependent  upon  the  real 
presence  of  God  in  them  and  with  them.  God  is  the  only  divine 
authority.  The  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason  have  divine 
authority  only  as  the  instruments  of  His  sovereign  will  and  as 
the  channels  of  His  gracious  pleasure,  each  having  its  own 
especial  place  and  importance  in  the  work  of  grace." 

Also  on  pages  115-117: 

"  The  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  were  imme- 
diately inspired  by  God,  but  that  inspiration  did  not  make  them 
inerrant  in  matters  of  science.  They  have  been  kept  pure  in  all 
ages,  so  far  as  their  purpose  of  grace,  their  message  of  salvation, 
their  rule  of  faith  and  practice  is  concerned ;  but  they  are  not 
inerrant  now,  and  it  is  not  probable  that  they  ever  were  inerrant 
in  matters  of  chronology.  They  are  sufficient  to  give  that  knowl- 
edge of  God  and  of  His  will  which  is  necessary  unto  salvation  ;  but 
they  are  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge  of  astronomy  and 
botany.  They  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ; 
but  they  are  not  the  only  infallible  rule  of  agriculture  and  navi- 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  107 

gation,  of  commerce  and  trade,  of  war  and  finance.  The  Scrip- 
tures are  pure,  holy,  errorless,  so  far  as  their  own  purpose  of 
grace  is  concerned,  as  the  only  infallible  rule  of  the  holy  religion, 
the  holy  doctrine,  and  the  holy  life.  They  are  altogether  perfect 
in  those  divine  things  that  come  from  heaven  to  constitute  the 
divine  kingdom  on  earth,  which,  with  patient,  quiet,  peaceful, 
but  irresistible  might,  goes  forth  from  the  holy  centre  through 
all  the  radii  of  the  circle  of  human  affairs  and  persists  until  it 
transforms  the  earth  and  man. 

"  The  Bible  is  the  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  It  is 
such,  and  no  one  can  make  it  otherwise.  It  claims  to  be  such, 
and  it  vindicates  its  own  claim.  The  reader  of  the  Bible  will 
find  this  out  for  himself.  The  authority  of  God  will  grasp  his 
heart  and  conscience  with  irresistible  power.  The  preaching  of 
the  Word  accompanied  by  the  divine  Spirit  will  ever  continue 
its  blessed  work  of  convicting  and  converting  men,  of  sanctifying 
them  and  redeeming  them.  The  Bible  will  ever  be  the  counsel- 
lor and  guide  of  our  race,  until  the  second  advent  of  our  Lord. 
From  the  Bible  new  truth  will  break  forth  from  every  genera- 
tion, to  lift  men  higher  and  urge  them  onward  in  the  paths  of 
sanctification.  The  Bible  is  the  master,  the  infallible  rule,  and 
it  will  ever  continue  to  break  in  pieces  every  other  rule  of  faith 
and  life  that  men  may  put  in  its  way.  It  will  ever  continue  to 
give  new  theology,  new  religious  forces,  and  new,  fresher  and 
grander  guidance  in  holy  life  and  conduct  to  all  the  successive 
generations  of  mankind. 

"  There  are  errors  in  the  Bible  as  there  are  spots  upon  the  sun. 
The  sun-spots  do  not  disturb  the  light  and  heat  and  chemical 
action  of  the  great  luminary  or  check  his  reign  over  our  solar 
system.  They  suggest  that  there  are  greater  mysteries  of  glori- 
ous light  and  reign  beyond  our  vision.  So  the  errors  in  Holy 
Scripture  do  not  in  the  slightest  degree  impair  the  divine 
authority  that  shines  through  it  or  the  reign  of  grace  that  is  car- 
ried on  in  this  world  by  means  of  it.  They  intimate,  however, 
that  the  authority  of  God  and  His  gracious  discipline  transcend 
the  highest  possibilities  of  human  speech  or  human  writing ;  and 
that  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  is  not  only  the  religion  of  the 
Bible,  but  the  religion  of  personal  union  and  communion  witk 
ihe  living  God." 


108       THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

I  beg  leave  to  put  a  copy  of  this  volume  in  the  hands 
of  every  member  of  the  Presbytery  and  to  ask  them  to 
read  it  as  an  exposition  of  the  Inaugural  for  the  people 
in  the  matters  included  in  the  title.  Other  passages 
will  be  read  in  the  Argument  for  the  defence. 

(6).  I  put  in  evidence  all  the  authorities  cited  in  my 
writings  "in  so  far  as  they  bear  upon  this  case,"  and  es- 
pecially the  following : 

The  Sytiod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  vindicated,  Phila- 
delphia, 1765. 

Eight  Letters  of  Antony  Tuckney  and  Benjamin  Whichcote, 
London,  1753, 

W.  G.  T.  Shedd,  Dogmatic  Theology,  1888. 

Orders  and  Regulations  for  Field  Officers  of  the  Salvation 
Army,  London,  1891, 

Ball,  Treatise  of  Faith,  1637. 

Marti  neau's  Seat  of  Authority  in  Religion. 

Westcott's  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  of  John. 

Newman's  Apologia. 

A.  A.  Hodge  and  B.  B.  Warfield,  Article,  Inspiration,  in  Pres- 
byterian Review,  Vol.  IL 

John  Wallis,  Sernwns,  London,  1791. 

Schaff,  Church  History,  The  German  Reformation,  1888. 

Lyford's  Plain  Man's  Senses  Exercised,  1655. 

Beet,  Commentary  on  Galatians. 

Schaff,  Commentary  on  Galatians. 

Lechler,  Commentary  on  Acts. 

Evans  and  Smith,  Inspiration  and  Inerrancy, n&'f}  ^6.\t\on,  1892. 

Alexander,  Commentary  on  Acts. 

Delitzsch,  Commentary  on  Gefiesis,  new  edition,  1887. 

A.  B.  Davidson,  Commentary  on  Job,  1884. 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGG3  109 

Delitzsch,  Commentary  on  Ecclesiastes,  1875. 
Kirkpatrick,  Commentary  on  Samuel,  1884. 
Perowne,  Commentary  on  the  Psalter,  sixth  edition,  1 886. 
Wesley's  Sermons,  cxxvi. 
Calvin,  Commentaries  on  the  New  Testament. 
Westcott,  Commentary  on  Hebrews,  1889. 
Cotton  Mather,  Hades  Looked  Into,  17 17. 
Dorner's  Future  State,  edited  by  Smythe,  1883. 
A.  F.  Mitchell,  The  Westminster  Assembly,  1883. 
A.  H.  Strong,  Systematic  Theology,  1886. 

Dr.  Prentiss'  article,  Infant  Salvation,  in  the  Presbyterian  Re- 
view, Vol.  IV. 

G.  P.  Fisher,  Nature  and  Method  of  Revelation,  1890. 

Lux  Mundi,  1890,  1892. 

White's  Way  to  the  Tree  of  Life,  1647. 

Sanday,  Oracles  of  God,  1891. 

A.  B.  Bruce,  Kingdom  of  God,  1890. 

H.  B.  Smith,  System  of  Theology,  1884. 

W.  G.  T.  Shedd,  Article,  N.  V.  Observer,  1891. 

W.  H.  Green,  Article,  N.  V.  Observer,  1891. 

Add  also  the  following  writers  who  testify  to  errors  in 
Holy  Scripture,  from  pp.  215-235  of  Tke  Bible,  the 
Church  and  the  Reason. 

These  are  the  Christian  scholars  through  the  centuries 
who  testify  that  there  are  errors  in  Holy  Scripture.     I 
submit  them  in  evidence, 
(i).  Origen. 

"  Quin  si  de  aliis  compluribus  diligenter  quis  exquisierit  Evan- 
gelia  de  dissonantia  secundum  historiam,  quam  singulatim  tenta- 
bimus  pro  virili  ob  oculos  ponere,  vertigine  affectus,  vel  renuet 
confirmare  Evangelia  tanquam  vera,  et  judicio  suo  sibi  eligens 
quod  voluerit,  alicui  ipsorum  Evangeliorum  adhaerebit,  non 
audens  funditus  infirmare  de  Domino  nostro  (idem  ;  vel  admit- 
tens  quatuor  esse  Evangelia,  veritatem  ipsorum  non  in  formis  et 


110  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

characteribus  corporalibus  esse  adjunget"  {Cotn.  in  Joan.  Tomus 
X.  2.  Migne,  Patrologia,  Greek,  Tom.  xiv.,  Origen,  Tom.  iv.  311). 

(2).  Jerome. 
"Hoc  Testimonium  in  Jeremia  non  invenitur.  In  Zacharia 
vero,  qui  pane  ultimus  est  duodecim  prophetarum,  quaedam 
similitude  fertur  (Zach.  xi.)  :  et  quamquam  sensus  non  multum 
discrepet ;  tamen  et  ordo  et  verba  diversa  sunt.  Legi  nuper  in 
quodam  Hebraico  volumine,  quod  Nazaraenae  sectae  mihi  He- 
braeus  obtulit;  Jeremiae  apocryphum,  in  quo  haec  ad  verbum 
scripta  reperi.  Sed  tamen  mihi  videtur  magis  de  Zacharia  sump- 
tum  testimonium  :  Evangelistarum  et  Apostolorum  more  vulgato, 
qui  verborum  ordine  praetermisso,  sensus  tantum  de  veteri  Testa- 
mento  proferunt  in  exemplum"(Matth.  xxvii.  9).  Migne,Patr.  xxvi. 

(3).  Augustine. 

"  30.  How,  then,  is  the  matter  to  be  explained,  but  by  suppos- 
ing that  this  has  been  done  in  accordance  with  the  more  secret 
counsel  of  that  providence  of  God  by  which  the  minds  of  the 
evangelists  were  governed  ?  For  it  may  have  been  the  case,  that 
when  Matthew  was  engaged  in  composing  his  Gospel,  the  word 
Jeremiah  occurred  to  his  mind,  in  accordance  v/ith  a  familiar  ex- 
perience, instead  of  Zechariah.  Such  an  inaccuracy,  however,  he 
would  most  undoubtedly  have  corrected  (having  his  attention 
called  to  it,  as  surely  would  have  been  the  case,  by  some  who 
might  have  read  it  while  he  was  still  alive  in  the  flesh),  had  he 
not  reflected  that  (perhaps)  it  was  not  without  a  purpose  that  the 
name  of  the  one  prophet  had  been  suggested  instead  of  the  other 
in  the  process  of  recalling  the  circumstances  (which  process  of 
recollection  was  also  directed  by  the  Holy  Spirit),  and  that  this 
might  not  have  occurred  to  him  had  it  not  been  the  Lord's  pur- 
pose to  have  it  so  written.  If  it  is  asked,  however,  why  the  Lord 
should  have  so  determined  it,  there  is  this  first  and  most  service- 
able reason,  which  deserves  our  most  immediate  consideration, 
namely,  that  some  idea  was  thus  conveyed  of  the  marvellous  man- 
ner in  which  all  the  holy  prophets,  speaking  in  one  spirit,  con- 
tinued in  perfect  unison  with  each  other  in  their  utterances, — a 
circumstance  certainly  much  more  calculated  to  impress  the 
mind  than  would  have  been  the  case  had  all  the  words  of  all 
these  prophets  been  spoken  by  the  mouth  of  a  single  individual. 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  m 

The  same  consideration  might  also  fitly  suggest  the  duty  of 
accepting  unhesitatingly  whatever  the  Holy  Spirit  has  given  ex- 
pression to  through  the  agency  of  these  prophets,  and  of  looking 
upon  their  individual  communications  as  also  those  of  the  whole 
body,  and  on  their  collective  communications  as  also  those  of 
each  separately.  If,  then,  it  is  the  case  that  words  spoken  by 
Jeremiah  are  really  as  much  Zechariah's  as  Jeremiah's,  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  that  words  spoken  by  Zechariah  are  really  as 
much  Jeremiah "s  as  they  are  Zechariah's,  what  necessity  was 
there  for  Matthew  to  correct  his  text  when  he  read  over  what 
he  had  written,  and  found  that  the  one  name  had  occurred 
to  him  instead  of  the  other  ?  Was  it  not  rather  the  proper  course 
for  him  to  bow  to  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  under  whose 
guidance  he  certainly  felt  his  mind  to  be  placed  in  a  more  decided 
sense  than  is  the  case  with  us,  and  consequently  to  leave  un- 
touched what  he  had  thus  written,  in  accordance  with  the  Lord's 
counsel  and  appointment,  with  the  intent  to  give  us  to  under- 
stand that  the  prophets  maintained  so  complete  a  harmony  with 
each  other  in  the  matter  of  their  utterances  that  it  becomes 
nothing  absurd,  but,  in  fact,  a  most  consistent  thing  for  us  to 
credit  Jeremiah  with  a  sentence  originally  spoken  by  Zechariah  ?  " 
{Harmony  of  the  Gospels,  HI.,  7,  30,  in  Select  Library  of  the  Nicene 
and  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  Augustine's  Works,  VI.,  pp.  191-2). 

(4),  Luther. 
"  In  diesem  Kapitel  ist  beschrieben  der  Ausgang  und  das  Ende 
beider  Reiche,  des  Judenthums  und  auch  derganzen  Welt.  Aber 
die  zween  Evangelisten,  Matthaus  und  Marcus,  werfen  die  beide 
in  einander,  halten  nicht  die  Ordnung,  die  Lucas  gehalten  hat; 
denn  sie  nicht  weiter  sehen,  denn  dass  die  Worte  Christi  geben 
und  erzahlen,  bekummern  sich  nicht  damit,  was  vor  oder  nach 
geredet  sei ;  Lucas  aber  befleissiget  sich,  es  kliirlicher  und  ordent- 
licher  zu  schreiben,  und  erzahlet  diese  Rede  zweimal ;  eines  kiirz- 
lich  am  neunzehnten  Kapitel,  da  er  von  Zerstorung  der  Juden  zu 
Jerusalem  saget;  darnach  am  ein  und  zwangigsten  von  diesen 

beiden  nach  einander So  feme  hat  nun  Christus  von  den 

Juden  geredt.  Nun  hab  ich  zuvor  gesagt,  dass  Matthaus  und 
Marcus  die  zwei  Ende  in  einander  mengen  ;  daraus  es  hier  schwer 
ist  zu  unterscheiden  und  mussen  es  doch  unterscheiden.  Darum 
merke,  dass,  was  bisher  geredt  ist,  alles  dorthin  auf  die  Judea 


112  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

gehet ;  aber  hier  flichtet  er  nun  beides  in  einander,  bricht  aber 
kurz  ab,  fraget  nicht  viel  nach  der  Ordnung,  wie  die  Spriiche,  so 
Christus  gesagt  hat,  auf  und  nach  einander  gehen,  sondern  liisset 
es  dem  Evangelisten  Lucas  befohlen  sein,  will  aber  sosagen,  dass 
es  vor  dem  jiingsten  Tage  auch  so  gehen  werde  "  (Luther's  Werke, 
Erlangen  edition,  Vierzeh7iter  Band,  pp.  319,  324). 

"Von  diesen  dreien  Verlaugnen  Petri  haben  wir  oben  geh5ret. 
Die  anderen  Evangelisten  beschreibens  also,  als  sind  sie  gesche- 
hen  in  dem  Hause  Caipha :  Johannes  aber  beschreibts,  als  sei 
die  erste  Verlaugnung  geschehen  in  dem  Hause  Hannii,  wie 
seine  Wort  lauten :  Hannas  sandte  Jesum  gebunden  zu  dem 
Hohen-priester  Caiphas.  Dieser  Text  lautet  gleich  als  sei  die 
erste  Verlaugnung  in  dem  Hause  Hanna  geschehen.  Solches  zu 
vereinigen  befehle  ich  den  Scharfsinnigen,  wie  ich  oben  auch 
gesagt  habe.  Es  kann  auch  wohl  sein,  dass  Johannes  nicht  also 
gnau  und  eben  gehalten  habe  die  Ordnung  im  Reden  ;  doch 
davon  itzt  nicht  weiter."  (Luther's  Werke,  Fimfzigster  Band,  p. 

325-) 

"  Aber  die  fragts  sichs,  erstlich,  wie  sich  die  zweene  Evangel- 
isten, Matthaus  und  Joannes,  zusammen  reimen.  Den  Matthiius 
schreibet,  es  sei  geschehen  am  Palmentage,  da  der  Herr  zu  Jeru- 
salem ist  eingeritten  :  hie  lautets  im  Joanne  also,  als  sei  es  bald 
umb  die  Ostern  nach  der  Taufe  Christi  geschehen  ;  wie  denn  das 
Mirakel,  dass  Christus  Wasser  zu  Wein  gemacht  hat,  auch  umb 
die  Ostern  geschehen  ist,  und  ist  darnach  gen  Kaupernaum 
gezogen.  Denn  umb  der  dreier  KOnige  Tage  ist  er  getauft,  und 
hater  leichtlich  ein  kleine  Zeit  verharren  konnen  zu  Kapernaum 
bis  auf  Ostern,  und  da  angefangen  zu  predigen,  und  das  gethan 
auf  Ostern,  davon  Joannes  hie  redet. 

"  Aber  es  sind  Fragen  und  bleiben  Fragen,  die  ich  nicht  will 
auflCsen  ;  es  liegt  auch  nicht  viel  dran,  ohne  dass  viel  Leute  sind, 
die  so  spitzig  und  scharfsinnig  sind,  und  allerlei  Fragen  auf- 
bringen,  und  davon  gnau  Rede  und  Antwort  haben  woUen. 
Aber  wenn  wir  den  rechten  Verstand  der  Schrift  und  die  rechten 
Artikel  unsers  Glaubens  haben,  dass  Jesus  Christus,  Gottes  Sohn» 
fiir  uns  gestorben  und  gelitten  hab,  so  hats  nicht  grossen  Mangel, 
ob  wir  gleich  auf  Alles,  so  sonst  gefragt  wird,  nicht  antworten 
konnen.  Die  Evangelisten  halten  nicht  einerlei  Ordnung :  was 
einer  vornen  setzet,  dass  setzet  der  ander  bisweilen  hinten ;  wie 
auch  Markus  von  dieser  Geschicht  schreibet,  sie  sei  am  andern 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  II3 

Tage  nach  dem  Palmtage  geschehen.  Es  kann  auch  wohl  sein, 
dass  der  Herr  Solchs  mehr  denn  einmal  gethan  hat,  und  dass 
Joannes  das  erste  Mai,  Matthaus  das  ander  Mai  beschreibet. 
Ihm  sei  nu  wie  ihm  wolle,  es  sei  zuvor  oder  hernach,  eins  oder 
zwier  geschehen,  so  brichts  uns  an  unserm  Glauben  Nichts  ab  " 
(Luther's  IVerke,  Seeks  und  vierzigster  Band,  pp.  173-4). 

"  Proinde  tecum  non  possum  sentire,  quod  3  Reg.  VI.  sit  in- 
telligendus  numerus  pro  bonis  tantum  judicibus.  Sed  potius 
Actor.  XIII.  putabo  depravatum  400  pro  300,  ut  in  meo  Chronico 
signavi.  Quandoquidem  et  Stephani  narratio  Act.  VII.  cedere 
debet  Mosi  Chronico,  ut  ibidem  ostendi.  Igitur  aliam  afiferto 
conciliationem  Pauli  Actor.  XIII.  cum  3  Reg.  VI.  Tua  ista  mihi 
non  satisfacit  "  (De  Wette's  Luther's  Brief  e,  Fiinfter  Theil,  p.  489). 

(5).   Calvin. 

"  Stephen  saith,  that  the  patriarchs  were  carried  into  the  land 
of  Canaan  after  they  were  dead.  But  Moses  maketh  mention 
only  of  the  bones  of  Joseph  (Gen.  13).  And  Joshua  xxiv.  (32) 
it  is  reported,  that  the  bones  of  Joseph  were  buried,  without 
making  any  mention  of  the  rest.  Some  answer,  that  Moses 
speaketh  of  Joseph  for  honour's  sake,  because  he  had  given  ex- 
press commandment  concerning  his  bones,  which  we  cannot 
read  to  have  been  done  of  the  rest.  And,  surely,  when  Jerome, 
in  the  pilgrimage  of  Paula,  saith,  that  she  came  by  Shechem,  he 
saith  that  she  saw  there  the  sepulchres  of  the  twelve  patriarchs ; 
but  in  another  place  he  maketh  mention  of  Joseph's  grave  only. 
And  it  may  be  that  there  were  empty  tombs  erected  to  the  rest. 
I  can  affirm  nothing  concerning  this  matter  for  a  certainty,  save 
only  that  this  is  either  a  speech  wherein  is  synecdoche,  or  else 
that  Luke  rehearseth  this  not  so  much  out  of  Moses  as  accord- 
ing to  the  old  fame;  as  the  Jews  had  many  things  in  times  past 
from  the  fathers,  which  were  delivered,  as  it  were,  from  hand  to 
hand.  And  whereas  he  saith  afterward,  they  were  laid  in  the 
sepulchre  which  Abraham  had  bought  of  the  sons  of  Hemor,  it 
is  manifest  that  there  is  a  fault  (mistake)  in  the  word  Abraham. 
For  Abraham  had  bought  a  double  cave  of  Ephron  the  Hittite, 
(Gen.  xxiii.  9),  to  bury  his  wife  Sarah  in ;  but  Joseph  was  buried 
in  another  place,  to  wit,  in  the  field  which  his  father  Jacob  had 
bought  of  the  sons  of  Hemor  for  an  hundred  lambs.    Wherefore 


114  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIG6S 

this  place  must  be  amended  "  (Calvin's  Commefitary  on  Acts  vzi. 
i6). 

"Say  not  in  thine  heart.  Who  shall  ascend?  etc.  Moses  men- 
tions heaven  and  the  sea,  as  places  remote  and  difficult  of  access 
to  men.  But  Paul,  as  though  there  was  some  spiritual  mystery 
concealed  under  these  words,  applies  them  to  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  Christ.  If  any  one  thinks  that  this  interpreta- 
tion is  too  strained  and  too  refined,  let  him  understand  that  it 
was  not  the  object  of  the  Apostle  strictly  to  explain  this  passage, 
but  to  apply  it  to  the  explanation  of  his  present  subject.  He 
does  not,  therefore,  repeat  verbally  what  Moses  has  said,  but 
makes  alterations,  by  which  he  accommodates  more  suitably  to 
his  own  purpose  the  testimony  of  Moses.  He  spoke  of  inac- 
cessible places ;  Paul  I'efers  to  those,  which  are  indeed  hid  from 
the  sight  of  us  all,  and  may  yet  be  seen  by  our  faith.  If,  then, 
you  take  these  things  as  spoken  for  illustration,  or  by  way  of  im- 
provement, you  cannot  say  that  Paul  has  violently  or  inaptly 
changed  the  words  of  Moses ;  but  you  will,  on  the  contrary,  al- 
low, that  without  loss  of  meaning,  he  has,  in  a  striking  manner, 
alluded  to  the  words  heaven  and  the  sea."  (Calvin's  Commentary 
on  Romatts  x.  6). 

"  And  worshipped  on  the  top,  etc.  This  is  one  of  those  places 
from  which  we  may  conclude  that  the  points  were  not  formerly 
used  by  the  Hebrews;  for  the  Greek  translators  could  not  have 
made  such  a  mistake  as  to  put  staff  here  for  a  bed,  if  the  mode 
of  writing  was  then  the  same  as  now.  No  doubt  Moses  spoke  of 
the  head  of  his  couch,  when  he  said,  niflsn  C'X"I  hv ;  but  the  Greek 
translators  rendered  the  words, '  on  the  top  of  his  staff,'  as  though 
the  last  word  was  written  Vi]^y::,r\.  The  Apostle  hesitated  not  to  ap- 
ply to  his  purpose  what  was  commonly  received  :  he  was  in- 
deed writing  to  the  Jews;  but  they  who  were  dispersed  into 
various  countries  had  changed  their  own  language  for  the 
Greek.  And  we  know  that  the  Apostles  were  not  so  scrupulous 
in  this  respect,  as  not  to  accommodate  themselves  to  the  un- 
learned, who  had  as  yet  need  of  milk ;  and  in  this  there  is  no 
danger,  provided  readers  are  ever  brought  back  to  the  pure  and 
original  text  of  Scripture.  But,  in  reality,  the  difference  is  but 
little ;  for  the  main  thing  was,  that  Jacob  worshipped,  which  was 
an  evidence  of  his  gratitude.    He  was  therefore  led  by  faith  to 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF   PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  115 

submit  himself  to  his   son  "  (Calvin's  Commentary  on  Hebrews 
xi.  21). 

(6).  Baxter. 
"  And  here  I  must  tell  you  a  great  and  needful  truth,  which 
....  Christians  fearing  to  confess,  by  overdoing  tempt  men  to 
Infidelity.  The  Scripture  is  like  a  man's  body,  where  some  parts 
are  but  for  the  preservation  of  the  rest,  and  may  be  maimed 
without  death  :  The  sense  is  the  soul  of  the  Scripture ;  and  the 
letters  but  the  body,  or  vehicle.  The  doctrine  of  the  Creed, 
Lord's  Prayer,  and  Decalogue,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper, 
is  the  vital  part,  and  Christianity  itself.  The  Old  Testament 
letter  (written  as  we  have  it  about  Ezra's  time)  is  that  vehicle 
which  is  as  imperfect  as  the  Revelation  of  these  times  was :  But 
as  after  Christ's  incarnation  and  ascension,  the  Spirit  was  more 
abundantly  given,  and  the  Revelation  more  perfect  and  sealed, 
so  the  doctrine  is  more  full  and  the  vehicle  or  body,  that  is,  the 
words  are  less  imperfect  and  more  sure  to  us;  so  that  he 
that  doubteth  of  the  truth  of  some  words  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, or  of  some  circumstances  in  the  New,  hath  no  reason 
therefore  to  doubt  of  the  Christian  religion,  of  which  these  writ- 
ings are  but  the  vehicle  or  body,  sufficient  to  ascertain  us  of  the 
truth  of  the  History  and  Doctrine"  (T/ie  Catechising  of  Families, 
1683,  p.  36). 

(7).  Rutherford. 

"  Mr.  fohn  Goodwin  will  allow  us  no  foundation  of  faith,  but 
such  as  is  made  of  grammers  and  Characters,  and  if  the  Scrip- 
ture be  wrong  pointed,  or  the  Printer  drunke,  or  if  the  transla- 
tion slip,  then  our  faith  is  gone  :  Whereas  the  meanes  of  con- 
veying the  things  beleeved  may  be  fallible,  as  writing,  printing, 
translating,  speaking,  are  all  fallible  meanes  of  conveying  the 
truth  of  Old  and  New  Testament  to  us,  and  yet  the  Word  of 
God  in  that  which  is  delivered  to  us  is  infallible,  i.  For  let  the 
Printer  be  fallible  ;  2.  The  translation  fallible  ;  3.  The  Grammer 
fallible ;  4.  The  man  that  readeth  the  word  or  publisheth  it 
fallible,  yet  this  hindreth  not  but  the  truth  itself  contained  in 
the  written  word  of  God  is  infallible Now,  in  the  carry- 
ing of  the  doctrine  of  the  Prophets  and  Apostles  to  our  knowl- 
edge, through  Printers,  translators,  grammer,  pens,  and  tongues 


IIQ  THE  EVIDENCE  OF   PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

of  men  from  so  many  ages,  all  which  are  fallible,  we  are  to  look 
to  an  unerring  and  undeclinable  providence,  conveying  the 
Testament  of  Christ,  which  in  itself  is  infallible  and  begs  no 
truth,  no  authoritie  either  from  the  Church  as  Papists  dreame, 
or  from  Grammer,  Characters,  Printer,  or  translator,  all  these 
being  adventitious  and  yesterday  accidents  to  the  nature  of  the 
word  of  God,  and  when  Mr.  Goodwin  resolves  all  our  faith  into  a 
foundation  of  Christian  Religion  (if  I  may  call  it  Religion)  made 
of  the  credit,  learning  and  authority  of  men,  he  would  have  men's 
learning  and  authoritie  either  the  word  of  God,  or  the  essence 
and  nature  thereof,  which  is  as  good  as  to  include  the  garments 
and  cloathes  of  man,  in  the  nature  and  definition  of  a  man,  and 
build  our  faith  upon  a  paper  foundation,  but  our  faith  is  not 
bottomed  or  resolved  upon  these  fallible  meanes  ;  .  .  .  .  and 
though  there  be  errours  of  number,  genealogies,  &c.,  of  writing 
in  the  Scripture,  as  written  or  printed,  yet  we  hold  providence 
watcheth  so  over  it,  that  in  the  body  of  articles  of  faith,  and 
necessary  truths,  we  are  certaine  with  the  certainty  of  faith,  it  is 
that  same  very  word  of  God,  having  the  same  speciall  operations 
of  enlightfiing  the  eyes,  cofiverting  the  soule,  making  wise  the 
simple,  as  being  lively,  sharper  than  a  two-edged  sword,  full  of 
divinity,  life,  Majesty,  power,  simplicity,  wisdome,  certainty,  &c., 
which  the  Prophets  of  old,  and  the  writings  of  the  Evangelists, 
and  Apostles  had "  {A  Free  Disputation  Against  Pretended 
Liberty  of  Conscience,  Sam.  Rutherford,  London,  1649,  pp.  362- 
363.  366). 

"  May  not  reading,  interpunction,  a  parenthesis,  a  letter,  an  ac- 
cent, alter  the  sense  of  all  fundamentalls  in  the  Decalogue  }  of 
the  principles  of  the  Gospel?  and  turne  the  Scripture  in  all 
points  (which  Mr.  Doctour  restricts  to  some  few  darker  places, 
whose  senses  are  ofT  the  way  to  heaven,  and  lesse  necessary)  in  a 
field  of  Problemes,  and  turn  all  beleeving  into  digladiations  of 
wits?  all  our  comforts  of  the  Scriptures  into  the  reelings  of  a 
Wind-mill,  and  phancies  of  seven  Moons  at  once  in  the  firma- 
ment? this  is  to  put  our  faith  and  the  first  fruits  of  the  Spirit, 
and  Heaven  and  Hell  to  the  Presse.  But  though  Printers  and 
Pens  of  men  may  erre,  it  followeth  not  that  heresies  should  be  tol- 
erated, except  we  say,  i.  That  our  faith  is  ultimately  resolved 
upon  characters,  and  the  faith  of  Printers.  2.  We  must  say,  we 
have  not  the  cleare  and  infallible  word  of  God,  because  the  Scrip- 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  117 

ture  comes  to  our  hand,  by  fallible  means,  which  is  a  great  in- 
consequence, for  though  Scribes,  Translatours,  Grammarz'ans, 
Printers,  may  all  erre,  it  follovveth  not  that  an  erring  providence 
of  him  that  hath  seven  eyes,  hath  not  delivered  to  the  Church, 
the  Scriptures  containing  the  infallible  truth  of  God.  Say  the 
Baruch  might  erre  in  writing  the  Prophesieof  ^^rd-w/a^.it  foUow- 
eth  not  that  the  Prophesie  of  Jeremiah,  m  hich  we  have,  is  not 
the  infallible  word  of  God  ;  if  all  Trmislatours  attd  Printers  did 
their  alone  watch  over  the  Church,  it  were  something,  and  if 
there  were  not  one  with  seven  eyes  to  care  for  the  Scripture.  But 
for  Tradition,  Councells,  Popes,  Fathers,  they  are  all  fallible 
means,  and  so  far  forth  to  be  beleeved,  as  they  bring  Scripture 
with  them  "  i^A  Free  Dispiitatioti  Against  Pretended  Liberty  of 
Conscience,  London,  1649,  PP-  37°'  370- 

(8).    Va7i  Oosterzee. 

"  Errors  and  inaccuracies,  in  matters  of  subordinate  import- 
ance, are,  as  we  have  already  seen,  undoubtedly  to  be  found  in 
the  Bible.  A  Luther,  a  Calvin,  a  Cocceius,  among  the  older 
Theologians ;  a  Tholuck,  a  Neander,  a  Lange,  a  Stier,  among  the 
more  modern  ones,  have  admitted  this  without  hesitation.  But 
this  proves  absolutely  nothing  against  the  truth  and  authority  of 
the  Word,  where  it  is  speaking  of  the  Way  of  Salvation  "  {Chris- 
tian Dogmatics,  Van  Oosterzee,  p.  205). 

(9).  Marcus  Dods,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Exe- 
gesis, New  College  {Presbyterian),  Edinburgh. 

"  In  Scripture  we  have  the  infallible  truth  about  God  and  His 
salvation.  This  position  is  the  mean  between  two  equally  un- 
tenable positions  ;  it  is,  on  the  one  hand,  impossible  to  maintain 
the  infallibility  of  Scripture  on  the  ground  of  its  literal  accuracy; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  impossible  to  maintain  that  the  Bi- 
ble is  not  infallible  because  there  maybe  found  in  it  inaccuracies. 
Its  infallibility  attaches  to  its  main  substance  and  central  mes- 
sage. It  infallibly  achieves  the  object  for  which  it  was  designed  " 
{Magazine  of  Christian  Literature,  Feb.,  1892,  p.  396). 


118  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGG3 

(lo).    William  Sanday,  Dean  Ireland  Professor  of  Exe- 
gesis, Oxford. 

"  History  is  strewn  with  warnings  as  to  the  mistakes  in  which 
we  are  involved  the  moment  we  begin  to  lay  down  what  an  In- 
spired Book  ought  to  be  and  what  it  ought  not  to  be.  I  spoke 
of  some  of  these  mistakes  last  time.  They  are  all  so  many  ap- 
plications of  the  assumption  that  an  Inspired  Book  must  be  in- 
fallible, not  merely  as  a  Revelation,  but  as  a  Book.  Is  there  any 
better  reason  for  this  than  there  was  for  those  other  assumptions 
which  Bishop  Butler  showed  to  be  so  untenable — that  a  revela- 
tion from  God  must  be  universal,  that  it  could  not  be  confined 
to  an  obscure  and  insignificant  people  ;  that  a  revelation  from 
God  must  be  clear — that  it  could  not  be  wrapt  up  in  difficul- 
ties of  interpretation  ;  that  its  evidence  must  be  certain  and  such 
as  should  leave  no  room  for  doubt  ?  All  these  criteria  had  been 
actually  put  forward ;  the  Christian  revelation  had  been  tried 
by  them  and  found  wanting.  No  one  would  think  of  putting 
forward  any  such  criteria  now.  Yet  there  is  no  essential  differ- 
ence between  the  claim  which  was  then  made  for  the  Revelation 
itself,  and  the  claim  which  is  still  made  for  the  Book  in  which 
that  Revelation  is  embodied.  Such  a  Book,  it  is  urged,  must  at  the 
least  be  infallible.  If  that  were  so,  we  should  find  it  hard  to  con- 
tend with  the  facts ;  for  the  sphere  of  its  infallibility  has  been 
steadily  narrowed.  Its  text  is  not  infallible  ;  its  grammar  is  not 
infallible ;  its  science  is  not  infallible ;  and  there  is  grave  ques- 
tion whether  its  history  is  altogether  infallible.  But  to  argue 
thus  is  to  take  up  a  false  position  from  the  outset.  It  is  far  bet- 
ter not  to  ask  at  all  what  an  Inspired  Book  ought  to  be,  but  to 
content  ourselves  with  the  enquiry  what  this  Book,  which  comes 
to  us  as  inspired,  in  fact  and  reality  is.  It  will  not  refuse  to  an- 
swer our  questions  "  (T/ie  Oracles  of  God,  pp.  35-36). 

(11).    Alexafider  B.  Bruce,  Prof,  of  Apologetics   in   the 
Free  Church  College  {Presbyterian),  Glasgow. 

"In  conclusion,  let  us  say  that  men  create  for  themselves  a 
great  many  difficulties  in  connection  with  Scripture  by  thinking 
of  God  too  literally  as  an  Author.  Viewing  the  matter  abstract- 
ly, it  is  difficult  to  understand  how,  if  God  be  really  the  Author 
of  the  Bible,  in  the  sense  in  which  Milton  was  the  author  of 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  119 

Paradise  Lost,  He  should  not  write  in  perfect  style,  and  with 
perfect  accuracy  in  all  statements  of  fact,  and  in  perfect  accord- 
ance with  the  ideal  standard  in  morals  and  religion.  He  is 
surely  the  most  consummate  Artist ;  He  knows  everything ;  He 
is  absolutely  holy.  How  can  He  possibly  embody  His  thought 
in  inferior  Greek.'*  How  can  He  possibly  make  a  mistake? 
How  can  He  have  anything  to  do  with  crude  morality  or  a  de- 
fective religious  tone  ?  To  questions  of  this  sort  more  might  be 
added,  such  as  that  one  asked  by  the  free-thinker  Reimarus, 
How  could  God,  the  Holy  One,  employ  as  His  agents  in  revela- 
tion men  with  glaring  moral  infirmities?  There  are  several 
ways  of  dealing  with  these  questions.  One  is  to  deny  the  facts 
on  which  they  are  based  :  to  allege  boldly  that  the  Greek  is  fault- 
less ;  that  there  are  no  mistakes  in  point  of  fact,  no  crude  moral- 
ities, no  religious  shortcomings  ;  that  all  the  men  of  revelation 
were  faultless,  saintly,  perfectly  exemplary  persons.  Another 
way  is  to  admit  the  facts  and  draw  from  them  the  sweeping  con- 
clusion, There  was  no  revelation,  the  Bible  is  in  no  sense  an  ex- 
ceptional Book.  The  best  way  is  to  admit  the  facts,  and  try  to 
discover  a  way  of  reconciling  them  with  the  reality  of  revelation 
and  inspiration.  This  can  be  done  partly  by  conceiving  of  God's 
relation  to  the  Bible  as  less  immediate  than  was  formerly  sup- 
posed, and  partly,  and  very  specially,  by  giving  large  prominence 
to  the  gracious  condescension  of  God  in  the  whole  matter  of 
revelation.  Think  of  God's  authorship  as  spiritual,  not  literary ; 
and  remember  that  in  giving  to  the  world  a  Bible,  through  the 
agency  of  the  best  minds  in  Israel,  He  was  greatly  more  con- 
cerned about  showing  His  grace  than  about  keeping  aloof  from 
every  form  of  human  imperfection  "  {Inspiration  and  Inerrancy. 
Introduction,  pp.  34-35)- 

(12).   Joseph  A,  Beet,  Prof,  of  Systematic  Theology  in  the 
Wesleyan  Theological  College,  Richmond,  England. 

"  Against  the  foregoing  historical  arguments,  the  cursory  al- 
lusion in  Gal.  iii.  17  has  no  weight.  About  trifling  discrepancies 
between  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  texts,  Paul  probably  neither 
knew  nor  cared.  And  they  have  no  bearing  whatever  upon  the 
all-important  matter  he  has  here  in  hand.  He  adopted  the  chron- 
ology of  the  LXX.,  with  which  alone  his  readers  were  familiar; 


120  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

knowing,  possibly,  that  if  incorrect  it  was  only  an  understatement 
of  the  case. 

"  The  above  discussion  warns  us  not  to  try  to  settle  questions 
of  Old  Testament  historical  criticism  by  casual  allusions  in  the 
New  Testament.  All  such  attempts  are  unworthy  of  scientific 
Biblical  scholarship.  By  inweaving  His  words  to  man  in  historic 
fact,  God  appealed  to  the  ordinary  laws  of  human  credibility. 
These  laws  attest,  with  absolute  certainty,  the  great  facts  of 
Christianity.  And  upon  these  great  facts,  and  on  these  only, 
rest  both  our  faith  in  the  Gospel  and  in  God  and  the  authority  of 
the  Sacred  Book.  Consequently,  as  I  have  endeavored  to  show 
in  my  Romans,  Diss.  i.  and  iii.,  our  faith  does  not  require  the  ab- 
solute accuracy  of  every  historical  detail  in  the  Bible,  and  is  not 
disturbed  by  any  error  in  detail  which  may  be  detected  in  its 
pages.  At  the  same  time,  our  study  of  the  Bible  reveals  there 
an  historical  accuracy  which  will  make  us  very  slow  to  condemn 
as  erroneous  even  unimportant  statements  of  Holy  Scripture. 
And,  in  spite  of  any  possible  errors  in  small  details  or  allusions, 
the  Book  itself  remains  to  us  as,  in  a  unique  and  infinitely  glori- 
ous sense,  a  literary  embodiment  of  the  Voice  and  Word  of 
God  "  {St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  p.  90). 

(13).   A.  H.  Charteris,  Prof,  of  Biblical  Criticism  in  the 
University  of  Edinburgh. 

"  Errors,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  are  admitted  by  good  men  on  all 
sides  to  exist  in  the  books  as  we  now  have  them,  due  in  most 
cases  to  the  slips  of  copyists,  but  yet  such  that  we  have  no  means 
of  removing  them.  The  fact  that  good  men  on  both  sides  admit 
the  existence  of  such  errors,  and  yet  maintain  the  supreme  au- 
thority of  Scripture,  may  warn  us  to  beware  of  dogmatism  on 
either  side.  It  may  teach  us  to  shrink  from  the  fierce  consis- 
tency of  the  advocates  of  verbal  dictation,  without  driving  us  to 
manifest  the  arrogance  of  those  who  cut  and  carve  in  Holy  Writ 
as  they  think  fit, — as  though  their  own  minds  were  the  highest 
of  all  revelation, — as  though  they  were  sure  of  this  one  thing  only, 
that  there  is  neither  miracle  nor  marvel  in  the  collection  of  docu- 
ments which  have  'turned  the  world  upside  down  ' "  {The  Chris- 
tian Scriptures,  pp.  45,  46). 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  121 

(14).  Alfred  Flummer,   Master  of   University  College, 
Durham. 

"  The  difference,  if  there  be  any,  between  the  duration  of  the 
drought,  as  stated  here  and  by  St.  Luke  (iv.  25),  and  as  stated 
in  the  Book  of  the  Kings,  will  not  be  a  stumbling-block  to  any 
who  recognize  that  inspiration  does  not  necessarily  make  a  man 
infallible  in  chronology.  Three  and  a  half  years  (=42  months= 
1,260  days)  was  the  traditional  duration  of  times  of  great  calamity 
(Dan.  vii.  25 ;  xii.  7 ;  Rev.  xi.  2,  3  ;  xii.  6,  14 ;  xiii.  5). 

.  .  .  .  "  Have  we  any  right  to  assume  that  there  was  this 
special  Divine  care  to  produce  a  particular  wording,  when  it  is 
quite  manifest  that  there  has  not  been  special  Divine  care  to  pre- 
serve a  particular  wording? 

"  The  theory  of  verbal  inspiration  imports  unnecessary  and  in- 
superable difficulties  into  the  already  sufficiently  difficult  prob- 
lem as  to  the  properties  of  inspired  writings.  It  maintains  that 
'  the  line  can  never  rationally  be  drawn  between  the  thoughts 
and  words  of  Scripture';  which  means  that  the  only  inspired 
Word  of  God  is  the  original  Hebrew  and  Greek  wording,  which 
was  used  by  the  authors  of  the  different  books  in  the  Bible. 
Consequently  all  who  cannot  read  these  are  cut  off  from  the  in- 
spired Word;  for  the  inspired  thoughts  are,  according  to  this 
theory,  inseparably  bound  up  with  the  original  form  of  words. 
But  if  it  is  the  thought,  and  not  the  wording,  that  is  inspired, 
then  the  inspired  thought  may  be  as  adequately  expressed  in 
English  or  German  as  in  Hebrew  or  Greek.  It  is  the  inspired 
thought,  no  matter  in  what  language  expressed,  which  comes 
home  to  the  hearts  and  consciences  of  men,  and  convinces  them 
that  what  is  thus  brought  to  them  by  a  human  instrument  is  in- 
deed in  its  origin  and  in  its  power  Divine.  '  Never  ;;m«  thus 
spake '  was  said,  not  of  the  choice  language  that  was  used,  but  of 
the  meaning  which  the  language  conveyed. 

.  ..."  St.  Jude  probably  believed  the  story  about  the  dispute 
between  Michael  and  Satan  to  be  true ;  but  even  if  he  knew  it  to 
be  a  myth,  he  might  nevertheless  readily  use  it  as  an  illustrative 
argument,  seeing  that  it  was  so  familiar  to  his  readers.  If  an  in- 
spired writer  were  living  now,  would  it  be  quite  incredible  that 
he  should  make  use  of  Dante's  Purgatory  or  Shakespeare's  King 
Lear  ?    Inspiration  certainly  does  not  preserve  those  who  pos- 


122      THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

sess  it  from  imperfect  grammar,  and  we  cannot  be  certain  that  it 
preserves  them  from  other  imperfections  which  have  nothing  to 
do  with  the  truth  that  saves  souls.  Besides  which,  it  may  be 
merely  our  prejudices  which  lead  us  to  regard  the  use  of  legend- 
ary material  as  an  imperfection.  Let  us  reverently  examine  the 
features  which  inspired  writings  actually  present  to  us,  not 
hastily  determine  beforehand  what  properties  they  ought  to 
possess.  We  not  unnaturally  fancy  that  when  the  Holy  Spirit 
inspires  a  person  to  write  for  the  spiritual  instruction  of  men 
throughout  all  ages,  He  also  preserves  him  from  making  mis- 
takes as  to  the  authenticity  of  writings  of  which  he  makes  use, 
or  at  least  would  preserve  him  from  misleading  others  on  such 
points  ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  this  natural  expectation  of 
ours  corresponds  with  the  actual  manner  of  the  Spirit's  working. 
'  We  follow  a  very  unsafe  method  if  we  begin  by  deciding  in 
what  way  it  seems  to  us  most  fitting  that  God  should  guide  His 
Church,  and  then  try  to  wrest  facts  into  conformity  with  our  pre- 
conceptions '  (Salmon,  Introduction  to  the  N.  T.,  4th  ed.,  Murray, 
[1889],  p.  528  "). — St.  James  and  St.  Jude,  pp.  344,  405-6,  424-5. 

(15).  Charles  Gore,  Principal  of  Pusey  House,  Oxford. 
"  Here  then  is  one  great  question.  Inspiration  certainly  means 
the  illumination  of  the  judgment  of  the  recorder.  '  By  the  con- 
tact of  the  Holy  Spirit,' says  Origen,  'they  became  clearer  in 
their  mental  perceptions,  and  their  souls  were  filled  with  a 
brighter  light.'  But  have  we  any  reason  to  believe  that  it 
means,  over  and  above  this,  the  miraculous  communication  of 
facts  not  otherwise  to  be  known,  a  miraculous  communication 
such  as  would  make  the  recorder  independent  of  the  ordinary 
processes  of  historical  tradition?  Certainly  neither  S.  Luke's 
preface  to  his  Gospel,  nor  the  evidence  of  any  inspired  record, 
justifies  us  in  this  assumption.  Nor  would  it  appear  that  spirit- 
ual illumination,  even  in  the  highest  degree,  has  any  tendency  to 
lift  men  out  of  the  natural  conditions  of  knowledge  which  be- 
long to  their  time.  Certainly  in  the  similar  case  of  exegesis,  it 
would  appear  that  S.  Paul  is  left  to  the  method  of  his  time, 
though  he  uses  it  with  inspired  insight  into  the  function  and 
meaning  of  law  and  of  prophecy  as  a  whole.  Thus,  without 
pronouncing  an  opinion,  where  we  have  no  right  to  do  so,  on 
the  critical  questions  at  present  under  discussion,  we  may  main- 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  123 

tain  with  considerable  assurance  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 
doctrine  of  inspiration  to  prevent  our  recognizing  a  considerable 
idealizing  element  in  the  Old  Testament  history  "  {Lux  Mundi, 

p.  354). 

"  The  Church  is  not  restrained,  in  the  first  place,  by  having 
committed  herself  to  any  dogmatic  definitions  of  the  meaning 
of  inspiration.  It  is  remarkable  indeed  that  Origen's  almost 
reckless  mysticism,  and  his  accompanying  repudiation  of  the 
historical  character  of  large  parts  of  the  narrative  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  of  some  parts  of  the  New,  though  it  did  not  gain 
acceptance,  and  indeed  had  no  right  to  it  (for  it  had  no  sound 
basis),  on  the  other  hand  never  roused  the  Church  to  contrary 
definitions.  Nor  is  it  only  Origen  who  disputed  the  historical 
character  of  parts  of  the  narrative  of  Holy  Scripture.  Clement, 
before  him  in  Alexandria,  and  the  mediaeval  Anselm  in  the 
West,  treat  the  seven  days'  creation  as  allegory  and  not  history. 
Athanasius  speaks  of  paradise  as  a  '  figure.'  A  mediaeval  Greek 
writer,  who  had  more  of  Irenaeus  than  remains  to  us,  declared 
that  'he  did  not  know  how  those  who  kept  to  the  letter  and 
took  the  account  ot  the  temptation  historically  rather  than  alle- 
gorically,  could  meet  the  arguments  of  Irenaeus  against  them.' 
Further  than  this,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  mystical  method, 
as  a  whole,  tended  to  the  depreciation  of  the  historical  sense, 
in  comparison  with  the  spiritual  teaching  which  it  conveyed. 
In  a  difl^erent  line,  Chrysostom,  of  the  literal  school  of  inter- 
preters, explains  quite  in  the  tone  of  a  modern  apologist,  how 
the  discrepancies  in  detail  between  the  different  Gospels,  assure 
us  of  the  independence  of  the  witnesses,  and  do  not  touch  the 
facts  of  importance,  in  which  all  agree. 

"  The  Church  is  not  tied  then  by  any  existing  definitions.  We 
cannot  make  any  exact  claim  upon  any  one's  belief  in  regard  to 
inspiration,  simply  because  we  have  no  authoritative  definitioa 
to  bring  to  bear  upon  him  "  {Lux  Mundi,  pp.  357-8). 

(16).  Alfred  Cave,  Principal  of  Hackney  College,  London. 
"So  long  as  the  Bible  convinces  the  practical  man,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  diligent  student  of  its  pages,  of  its  unique  divine 
origin,  its  unique  prophecy,  its  unique  apostolic  teaching,  its 
unique  Gospel,  what  matters  it  whether  the  Bible  is  wholly  iner- 
rant  or  not  ?    Absolute  inerrancy,  in  such  a  case,  is  really  a  some- 


124  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

what  scholastic  and  indifferent  matter.  He  who  has  used  as  the 
messengers  of  His  grace  so  many  generations  of  preachers  (who 
certainly  have  not  been  wholly  perfect),  may  surely  if  He  will 
reveal  Himself  to  men  by  many  generations  of  writers  (who, 
although  specially  selected  and  adapted  for  their  purpose,  may 
yet  be  not  wholly  inerrant).  Does  not  the  supreme  authority  of 
the  Bible  lie  in  the  revelations  recorded  rather  than  in  the  in- 
spiration which  rendered  the  record  possible  ?  And  if  the  reve- 
lations are  accurate  enough  for  all  practical  purposes,  what  mat- 
ters it  whether  they  are  absolutely  inerrant  ? 

"  Indeed,  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  this  doctrine  of  absolute 
inerrancy,  like  the  doctrine  of  papal  infallibility,  is  an  outcome 
of  faithlessness,  and  even  of  want  of  courage.  We  must,  we 
think,  put  our  human  defences  around  the  ark  of  God,  or  we 
would  make  the  pursuit  of  truth  easy.  But  God  wills,  it  would 
seem,  that  the  path  to  truth  should  not  be  easy,  and  should  be  a 
constant  exercise  of  faith,  and  God  wills,  apparently,  to  demon- 
strate the  reliableness  of  His  Word,  in  His  own  way,  by  the  testi- 
monium Spiritiis  Sancti"  {The Homiletic Review,  Feb.,  1892,  p.  105). 

(17)-  James  Iverach,  Prof,  of  Apologetics,  Free  College 
{Presbyterian),  Aberdeen. 

"  Even  when  we  grant  the  results,  or  all  the  legitimate  results 
of  the  critical  movement,  give  to  criticism  all  the  rights  it  can 
claim,  we  have  still  all  the  mighty  resources  of  arguments  of  the 
kind  we  have  outlined,  wherewith  to  vindicate  the  Divine  au- 
thority and  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  and  their  claim  to  be 
the  Word  of  God  and  to  be  the  guide  and  inspirer  of  men.  But 
this  is  an  argument  which  can  scarcely  be  used  by  men  who  tie 
us  to  the  formal  discussion  of  a  theme  which  limits  itself  to  the 
question :  Are  there  or  are  there  not  errors  in  the  Scriptures  ? 

.  .  .  .  "  When  we  have  so  many  claims  to  make  on  behalf  of 
the  Word  of  God,  claims  which  can  neither  be  weakened  nor  de- 
nied, why  should  we  put  in  the  forefront  of  the  battle  a  claim  to 
errorless  perfection,  which  can  only  be  made  good  at  the  cost  of 
endless  argumentation,  often  of  the  kind  which  is  only  special 
pleading  at  the  best?  "  (The  Thinker,  Jan.,  1892,  pp.  27-8). 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  125 

(i8).  Joseph  Henry  Thayer,  Pr&f.  of  New    Testament 
Criticism  in  Harvard  University. 

"The  view  of  the  Scriptures  here  urged  I  have  called  a 
'change.'  But  let  me  remind  you  again  that  it  is  such  only  in 
reference  to  current  and  local  and  comparatively  recent  views. 
Of  the  great  mass  of  Christian  believers  down  through  the  cen- 
tunes  it  is  doubtful  whether  more  than  a  small  fraction  have 
held  the  hard  and  fast  theory  currently  advocated  among  us  to- 
day. They  may  be  said  to  have  been  unanimous  and  emphatic 
from  the  first  in  asserting  the  inspiration  of  the  written  word ; 
but  as  to  the  degree  and  nature  of  this  inspiration  there  has  been 
great  diversity,  or  at  least  indefiniteness,  among  leading  Christian 
thinkers  all  along.  It  was  not  before  the  polemic  spirit  became 
rife  in  the  controversies  which  followed  the  Reformation  that  the 
fundamental  distinction  between  the  '  Word  of  God '  and  the 
record  of  that  word  became  obliterated,  and  the  pestilent  tenet 
gained  currency  that  the  Bible  is  absolutely  free  from  every  error 
of  every  sort "  ( The  Change  of  Attitude  Towards  the  Bible,  pp. 
62-3;. 

(19).    W.  R.  Huntington,  Rector  of  Grace  Church,  N.  Y. 

"  The  advantage  gained  by  shifting  the  burden  of  argument 
from  inspiration  to  revelation  is  further  evident  when  we  con- 
sider that  inspiration  is  a  thing  of  degrees,  a  matter  of  more  and 
less,  whereas,  with  respect  to  revelation  all  we  have  to  ask  is. 
Has  it  or  has  it  not  occurred  ?  There  is  a  sense  of  the  word  in 
which  inspiration  is  credited  to  all  men  who  accomplish  more 
than  the  common.  Bezaleel  is  said  in  the  Book  of  Exodus,  to 
have  been  filled  with  the  Spirit  of  -God  'to  work  in  gold  and  in 
silver  and  in  brass,  and  in  cutting  of  stones  to  set  them,  and  in 
carving  of  timber.'  This  is  a  definition  of  inspiration  large 
enough  to  cover  the  case  of  Leonardo  da  Vinci,  the  Bezaleel  of 
the  Renaissance.  So  then,  if  Christians  confine  themselves  to  a 
claim  of  '  inspiration  '  for  the  authors  of  Scripture,  they  may  find 
men  putting  the  Bible  on  the  same  shelf  with  other  sacred  books, 
wedging  it  in  between  Plato  and  Confucius,  and  quite  content  to 
claim  for  Isaiah  and  St.  Paul  only  such  a  measure  of  the  Spirit 
as  they  are  willing  to  concede  to  Dante,  Bunyan,  and  i-Kempis. 
A  revelation,  on  the  other  hand,  does  not  admit  of  degrees. 


126 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


Either  it  has  been  made  or  it  has  not  been  made ;  either  the 
heavens  have  been  opened  and  God  has  showed  us  the  truth,  or 
they  are  brass  over  our  head  for  ever. 

"  To  a  mind  studying  the  Bible  from  the  point  of  approach  now 
indicated,  many  of  the  so-called  difficulties  of  faith  shrink  into 
insignificance.  The  intimation,  for  example,  of  little  inaccura- 
cies in  the  record,  whether  of  an  historical,  a  geographical,  or  a 
scientific  sort,  cease  to  alarm.  Are  the  great  structural  lines  of 
the  whole  fabric  right  and  true  ?  is  the  real  question.  Because 
I  accept  the  erratum  of  some  chronologist  who  has  discovered  a 
wrong  date  in  the  Book  of  Chronicles,  it  does  not  follow  that  I 
am  logically  bound  to  v/elcome  with  open  arms  a  whole  troop  of 
interpreters  who  are  bent  on  writing  the  Resurrection  down  a 
myth,  and  distilling  the  personality  of  God  into  a  figure  of  speech. 

.  .  .  .  "  The  simple  fact  of  the  matter  is  this  :  modern  research 
is  modifying, — some  say  revolutionizing,  but  it  is  more  accurate 
to  say  modifying,  old  opinions  as  to  the  process  by  which  the  vari- 
ous books  of  the  Bible  were  brought  into  their  present  combina- 
tion, and  made  into  the  volume  as  we  have  it  now.  Modern  re- 
search, be  it  also  observed,  is  doing  what  it  is  doing  after  a  fash- 
ion not  unlike  that  in  which  Sedgwick,  Murchison,  and  Lj-ell 
changed  our  old  conceptions  of  the  manner  in  which  the  globe 
was  brought  to  be  what  to-day  it  is.  But  the  earth  itself  is  pre- 
cisely what  it  was  before  the  geologists  began  to  investigate,  and 
the  book  we  know  as  the  Bible  is  precisely  what  it  was  before 
the  critics  began  to  criticise.  And  just  as  there  are  those  of  us 
who  while  thankfully  accepting  all  that  Geology  can  really  prove 
with  respect  to  the  formation  of  the  earth's  crust,  nevertheless 
hold  fast  the  old-fashioned  faith  which  expresses  itself  in  the 
words,  '  I  believe  in  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  Maker';  so  there 
are  those  of  us,  and  their  number  is  reckoned  by  tens  of  thou- 
sands, who  while  ready  cheerfully  to  concede  whatever  the  best 
critical  scholarship  may  be  able  to  establish  regarding  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Scriptures  as  an  historical  process,  are  not  at  all  shaken 
in  their  confidence  that  as  the  record  of  God's  revelation  of  Him- 
self, the  Bible,  substantially  as  we  have  it  now,  will  stand  to  the 
end  of  time"  {The  Peace  of  the  Church,  pp.  82-85). 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  127 

(20).    Thomas  G.  Apple,  Professor  of  Church  History  in 
the  Theological  Seminary  of  the  Reformed  Church,  Lancaster, Pa. 

"  We  feel  at  once  that  the  Ten  Commandments  and  the  Ser- 
mon on  the  Mount  are  the  Word  of  God  in  a  sense  that  cannot 
be  claimed  for  certain  other  portions  of  the  Scripture.  St.  Paul 
might  be  mistaken  in  his  chronology,  counting  430  years  from  the 
promise  made  to  Abraham  to  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  yet  this 
would  not  affect  the  inspiration  of  his  teaching  in  the  doctrines 
of  the  Christian  faith. 

"  '  But  where  will  you  draw  the  line  ?  '  it  is  said,  if  you  begin  to 
make  such  distinctions.  In  answer,  we  reply,  we  have  seen  that 
in  some  cases  such  distinction  most  assuredly  must  be  made,  and 
all  that  is  required  is  that  common  sense  and  intelligence  must 
be  used  in  interpreting  the  Scripture.  In  making  a  revelation 
God  assumes  that  it  is  made  to  intelligent  creatures,  and,  there- 
fore, He  does  not  reveal  science,  chronology,  etc.,  subjects  that 
man  can  acquire  a  knowledge  of  by  his  own  research,  except  in- 
cidentally, but  confines  His  revelation  to  supernatural  truth 
which  man  could  not  know  of  himself. 

"It  is  the  province  of  the  Higher  Criticism  to  determine  such 
questions  as  the  authorship  and  age  of  the  different  portions  of 
Scripture  and  the  relative  importance  and  authority  of  the  differ- 
ent sections,  just  as  the  lower  criticism  has  to  do  mainly  with 
the  purification  of  the  text.  Great  fears  were  entertained  when 
Bengel  and  others  began  the  study  of  the  text  by  comparing  the 
different  MSS.,  and  when  first  the  thousands  of  various  readings 
were  brought  out,  many  people  feared  that  it  would  destroy  all 
proper  faith  in  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God,  but  we  know  now 
that  the  result  has  been  healthful.  This  faith  has  in  nowise  been 
lessened,  but  it  has  become  more  intelligent.  And  so  the  Higher 
Criticism  must  produce  equally  good  results.  What  though 
rationalists  use  it  against  the  Bible .''  So  did  Strauss  and  Bauer 
try  to  invalidate  the  truth  of  the  New  Testament,  but  their  at- 
tack only  served  to  bring  out  a  better  and  stronger  defence  of 
the  gospel  of  our  Lord.  Much  yet  remains  to  be  learned  in 
reference  to  the  Bible,  and  the  more  we  learn  of  it  the  more  im- 
pregnable will  its  position  become  in  the  faith  of  believers  in 
Christianity"  {The  Reformed  Quarterly  Review,  Jan.,  1892,  pp. 
16-17). 


128  THE  EVIDENCE  OF   PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

(21).  George  P.  Fisher,  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory in  Yale  University. 

"  What  a  stupendous  miracle  would  be  involved  in  imparting^ 
this  impeccable  character  to  so  large  a  body  of  historical  writ- 
ings as  the  Bible  contains, — writings  which  run  through  so  many- 
ages  !  Of  what  avail  would  it  be,  unless  not  only  the  original 
writers,  but  also  amanuenses  and  transcribers,  were  all  to  be 
equally  guarded  to  the  end  of  time?  Exaggerated  statements 
on  this  subject  are  the  occasion,  at  present,  of  two  great  evils. 
One  mischievous  consequence  of  them  is  that  the  truth  and  di- 
vine origin  of  Christianity  are  staked  on  the  literal  correctness 
of  even  the  minutest  particulars  in  the  copious  narratives  of 
Scripture.  The  conscientious  student,  seeing  that  such  views 
are  untenable  in  the  light  of  fair  historical  criticism,  is  virtually 
bidden  to  draw  the  inference  that  the  foundations  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith  are  gone.  Moreover,  some  of  the  most  impressive 
arguments  in  defence  of  historical  Christianity,  which  depend  on 
the  presence  of  unessential  discrepancies,  showing  the  absence 
of  collusion,  and  in  various  other  ways  confirming  the  truthful- 
ness of  the  main  features  of  the  narrative,  are  precluded  from 
being  used  whenever  the  obsolescent  theory  that  the  biblical 
narratives  are  drawn  up  with  the  pedantic  accuracy  of  a  notary 
public  is  still  insisted  on.  It  is  a  conception  of  inspiration,  it 
may  be  added,  which  the  sacred  historians  themselves  do  not 
allege  "  {Nature  and  Method  of  Revelation,  pp.  41,  42). 

(22),  Marvin  R.  Vincent,  Professor  of  Sacred  Litera- 
ture, Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

"  We  must  construct  our  formula  of  inspiration  (if  we  deem  it 
wise  to  attempt  that  task  at  all)  from  an  actual  and  not  from  an 
imaginary  Bible.  All  that  we  can  do  is  to  study  our  Hebrew 
and  Greek  Bibles  in  the  best  texts  which  critical  scholarship  can 
give  us,  and  to  see  for  ourselves  whether  the  contents  are  liter- 
ally accurate  and  consistent  in  date,  quotation,  and  other  detail. 
If,  on  such  examination,  we  find  errors  or  discrepancies,  exegesis 
compels  us  to  abandon,  not  the/^f/  of  inspiration,  but  that  par- 
ticular theory  of  inspiration,  and  to  seek  for  another  which  will 
agree  with  the  facts." 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  129 

.  ..."  It  is  difficult  to  avoid  severe  expressions  concerning 
the  attempts  of  certain  divines,  and  writers  in  the  religious 
journals,  to  stigmatize  as  unorthodox  those  who  deny  the  verbal 
infallibility  of  Scripture,  and  to  represent  them  as  drawing  their 
arguments  from  sceptical  sources.  The  question  of  Christian 
courtesy,  charity,  and  candor  entirely  apart,  such  utterances  be- 
tray an  ignorance  which  is  unpardonable  in  men  who  assume  to 
shape  and  direct  public  opinion.  It  ought  not  to  be  necessary 
to  inform  such  that  the  denial  of  verbal  infallibility  is  not  only 
no  new  thing,  but  that  it  has  been  asserted  by  a  host  of  Christian 
scholars,  of  the  first  rank,  since  the  days  of  Jerome,  not  to  go 
farther  back  "  {Exegesis,  An  Address,  pp.  1 1,  40)- 

(23).  /.  H.  Fair  child,  ex-President  of  Oberlin   College, 
Ohio. 

"  It  is  impossible  to  prove  absolute  inspiration  in  the  sense 
claimed.  The  Scriptures  do  not  affirm  it,  and  no  other  proof  is 
possible.  No  human  wisdom  is  competent  to  search  it  out  in 
the  Scriptures,  and  establish  it,  in  reference  to  every  affirmation. 
It  might  be  safely  claimed  that  there  is  marvelous  accuracy,  even 
in  the  geographical  and  historical  statements,  and  marvelous 
wisdom  in  reference  to  all  matters  of  science— such  wisdom  as 
seems  to  imply  divine  guidance ;  securing  the  use  of  popular  ex- 
pressions such  as  are  always  appropriate,  and  the  avoidance  of 
all  technical  terms  which  imply  a  scientific  theory.  This  claim 
might  be  reasonably  maintained.  But  to  go  farther,  and  claim 
the' absolute  accuracy  of  all  minute  statements  of  fact,  or  the  ab- 
solute harmony  of  all  these  statements  with  one  another— this  is 
a  task  which  the  broadest  and  most  thorough  scholarship  in 
Scriptural  learning  would  not  undertake.  Indeed,  such  scholars 
suppose  they  find  minute  statements,  in  the  Scriptures,  which 
they  cannot  reconcile  with  each  other,  or  with  the  facts.  The 
advocate  of  absolute  inspiration  disposes  of  these  cases  by  as- 
suming that,  if  we  knew  the  facts  perfectly,  the  difficulty  would 
disappear.  But  this  is  not  proved,  and  cannot  be;  and  absolute 
inspiration,  to  avail  U6  as  such,  must  be  absolutely  proved  "  (In- 
spiration  of  the  Scriptures,  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  Jan.,  1892,  p.  20). 

I  also  beg  leave  to  submit,  without  reading  in  accord- 
ance with  the  ruling  of  the  Presbytery,  the  following, 
which  testify  against  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, and  the  Integrity  of  Isaiah  (pp.  236-247  of  Tlie 
Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reasoji) ;  the  writers  and  the 
names  of  their  writings  : 


130  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIQGS 

VI. 

WHO  ARE  "THE  HIGHER  CRITICS"? 

The  following  is  a  list  of  the  chief  modern  authorities  who 
hold  the  modern  critical  views.  Some  of  these  are  rationalists, 
but  the  majority  of  them  are  evangelical  Christians.  All  of  them, 
so  far  as  I  know,  are  honest,  faithful,  and  truth-seeking  scholars. 
They  all  recognize  the  composite  character  of  the  Hexateuch  and 
Isaiah,  though  they  differ  as  to  the  date  of  the  documents  and 
as  to  the  extent  and  thoroughness  with  which  they  make  the 
analysis  of  the  documents.  But  however  much  they  differ  in  de- 
tails, they  stand  in  solid  phalanx  against  the  traditional  theory 
that  Moses  is  responsible  for  our  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form 
and  that  Isaiah  wrote  the  whole  of  the  book  which  bears  his 
name. 

The  list  is  limited  to  those  who  have  lived  during  the  past  25 
years,  since  1866,  when  the  writer  began  his  studies  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Berlin.  Those  who  have  died  are  marked  with  a  t. 
We  do  not  propose  to  give  all  writers  or  all  the  writings  of  the 
authors  cited  ;  but  only  the  chief  writings,  and  a  sufficient  num- 
ber to  indicate  their  critical  opinions. 

I.  Germany. 

(1)  University  of  Berlin. 

Prof.  August  DiLLMANN.  Die  Genesis.  5te  Aufl.  \%%6\  Exodus 
und  Leviticus.  2te  Aufl.  1880;  Nttmeri,  Deuteronomium,tmd 
Josua.    2teAufl.    1ZZ6;  Der  Prophet  Jesaia.  s^^  ^^^-    1890. 

Prof.  Paul  Kleinert.  Hertwig's  Tabellen  zur  Einleitimg 
in  die  kanonischen  und  apokryphischen  Backer  des  Alien  Tes- 
taments. 2te  Aufl.  iZ6^;  Das  Detiteronomitwi  und  der  Deu- 
teronomiker.     1872. 

Prof.  Eberhard  Schrader.  De  Wette's  Einleitung  in  die  ka- 
nonischen und  apokryphischen  Biicher  des  Alten  Testaments. 
8teAufl.     1869. 

Prof.  Hermann  L.  Strack.  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament, 
in  ZOckler's  Handbuch  der  theologischen  Wissenschaften.  3te 
Aufl.     1889. 

tWiLHELM  Vatke.  Religion  des  Alten  Testaments.  1835;  His- 
torisch-kritische  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament.     1886. 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  I3I 

(2)  University  of  Breslau. 

Prof.  Rudolph  Kittel.  Geschichte  der  Hebrder  in  the  Hand- 
biicher  der  alien  Geschichte.     1888. 

+H.  Gratz,     Geschichte  der  Juden.     1864-70. 

(3)  University  of  Halle. 

Prof.  Emil  Kautzsch.  Die  Genesis  mit  dusserer  Unterscheidung 
der  Quellenschriften,  with  the  co-operation  of  Socin.  2te 
Aufl.  1 891;  Die  Heilige  Schrift  des  Alt  en  Testaments  iiber- 
setzt  uttd  herausgegeben.     1-5  Lieferung.     1890-92. 

Prof.  Edward  Meyer.  Geschichte  des  Alterthums.  \ZZ\\  Kritik 
der  Bericht  itber  die  Eroberung  Palest inas.  Z.  A.  W.  1881  • 
Die  Krieg gegen  Sichon.     Z.  A.  W.     1885. 

+HERMANN  HuPFELD.     Die  Quellen  der  Genesis.     1853. 

+D.  KONSTANTIN  SCHLOTTMANN.  Kompendium  der  Biblischen 
Theologie.     1889. 

■fEDUARD  RiEHM.  Alttesta7nentliche  Theologie.  iZ2,g\  Einleitung 
in  das  Alte  Testament.     1889-1890. 

(4)  University  of  Strassburg. 

Prof.  Theodor  Noldeke.  Die  Altestamentliche  Literatur 
1866  ;  Untersuchungen  zur  Kritik  des  Allen  Testajnents. 
1869. 

Prof.  Karl  Budde.  DieBiblische  Urgeschichte.  1883;  Die  Bucher 
Richter  und  Samuel,  ihre  Quellen  una  ihr  Aufbau.  1890  ;  Die 
Gesetzgebung  der  ?nittleren  Bucher  des  Pentateuchs.  Z  A  W 
1891  (2). 

Prof.  WiLHELM  NOWACK.     Der  Prophet  Hosea.     1880. 
tEDUARD  Reuss.     Die  Geschichte  der  Heiligen  Schriften  Alien 
Testaments.     2te  Auf.     i^go;  La  Bible.     Vol.1.    1879. 

tAuGUST  Kayser.  Dasvorexilische  Buchder  Urgeschichte  Israels 
und  seine  Erweiterutigen.     1 874. 

(5)  University  of  Marburg. 

Prof.  W.  W.  Baudissin.  Die  Geschichte  des  Alttestamentlichen 
Priest erthiims.     1889. 

Prof.  Julius  Wellhausen.  Prolegomena  zur  Geschichte  Is- 
raels 3te  Ausg.  1 886 ;  Die  Composition  des  Hexateuchs  und 
der  htstorischen  Bucher  des  Alien  Testaments.  2te  Druck  mit 
Nachtrdgen.  1885  ;  Bleek's  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testa7nent 
4te  Aufl.  1 878 ;  Sketch  of  the  History  of  Israel.  Third  Edi- 
tion.    1 891. 

Prof.  Adolph  Julicher.  Die  Quellen  von  Exodus  VI I. -XXIV, 
in  J.  P.  T.     1882. 


132  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

(6)  University  of  Giessen. 

Prof.  Bernhard  Stade.  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israels.  1881-88; 
Hebrdisches  Worterbitch  sum  Alien  Testaments,  with  Sieg- 
fried,    ite  Abtheil.     1892. 

(7)  University  of  Rostock. 

Prof.  Eduard  KoNIG.  Der  Offenbarungsbegriff  des  Alien  Tes- 
taments.    1882;    The  Religious  History  of  Israel.     1885. 

(8)  University  of  Greifswald. 

Prof.  Friedrich  W.  Bathgen.  Beiirage  zur  Semiiischen  Re- 
ligionsgeschichte.     1888. 

Prof.  Friedrich  Giesebrecht.  Der  Sprachgebrauch  des  Hexa- 
teuchischen  Elohisten  in  Z.  A.  W.  1881  (2)  ;  Beiirage  zur 
Jesaiakritik.     1 890. 

(9)  University  of  Gottingen. 

Prof.  Hermann  Schultz.  Alttesiamentliche  Theologie.  4te 
Aufl.     1885. 

Prof.  Rudolph  Smend.    Der  Prophet  Ezechiel.     1880. 

fHEINRICH  Ewald.  Die  Propheten  des  Alien  Bundes.  2te 
Ausg.  1867-8;  Commentary  on  the  Prophets.  1875-81;  Die 
Lehre  der  Bibel  von  Goit  oder  Theologie  des  Alien  ufid  Neuen 
Bundes.  1871  ;  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel.  3te  Ausg. 
1 864-8  ;  History  of  Israel.     1 869-7 1 . 

|-Ernst  Bertheau.  Das  Buch  der  Richter  und  Ruth.  2te 
Aufl.  1883;  Die  sieben  Gruppen  Mosaischer  Gesetze  in  den 
drei  mittleren  Buchern  des  Petiiaieuchs.     1 840. 

tPAUL  A,  de  Lagarde.  Orzentalia,\.  iZjg-,  Symmicta,!.  1877; 
Mittheilungen,  I.     1884. 

(10)  University  of  Leipzig. 

Prof.  Albert  Socin.  Die  Genesis  mit  dusserer  Unterscheidung 
der  Quellenschriften,  with  Kautzsch.     2te  Aufl.     1891. 

Prof.  Hermann  GUTHE.     Die  Zukunfisbild  des  Jesaias.     1885. 

Prof.  Friedrich  Delitzsch.     Wo  lag  das  Paradiesf    1881. 

Prof.  Frants  Buhl.  Jesaja  oversat  og  fortolkei.     1889-1891. 

tPRANZ  Delitzsch.  Zwdlf  Peniateuch-kritische  Studien,  Z.  K. 
W.  1880;  Neuer  Commentar  iiber  die  Genesis.  1887;  Com- 
mentar  iiber  das  Buch  Jesaia.  4te  Aufl.  i2>8g;  .Messianic 
Prophecy.     1891. 

(11)  University  of  Heidelberg. 

Prof.  Adalbert  Merx.  Nachwort  in  Tuch's  Commentar  Hber 
des  Genesis.     2te  Aufl.     1871. 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  I33 

Prof.  LUDWIG  Lemme.  Die  religionsgeschichtUche  Bedevtung 
des  Decalogs.     1 880. 

tPERDiNAND  HiTZlG.  Der  Prophet  Jesaja.  1833;  Geschichte 
des  Volkes  Israel.  1869;  Vorlesungeniiber  Biblische  Theologie. 
1880. 

(12)  University  of  Konigsberg. 

Prof.  Carl  H.  CORNILL.  Das  Buck  des  ProphetenEzechiel.  1886; 
Einleitiing  in  das  Alte  Testament  in  the  Grundriss  der  Theolo- 
gischen  JVissenschaften.     1 891. 

(13)  University  of  Kiel. 

Prof.  Emil  Schurer.  Geschichte  des  Jiidischefi  Volkes.  2te 
Aufl.     1886-89. 

Prof.  August  Klostermann.  Die  Heiligkeitsgesetz  in  Luther- 
ischer  Zeitschrift.  1877  ;  Beitrcige  zur  Entstehutigsgeschichte 
des  Pentateuchs.     N.  K.  Z.,  9,  10. 

Prof.  Conrad  Bredenkamp.  Gesetz  und  Propheten.  1881;  Der 
Prophet  Jesaia  erlciutert.     1886-87. 

(14)  University  of  Bonn. 

Prof.  Adolph  Kamphausen.  Bleek's  Einleitung  in  das  Alte 
Testament.     2te  Aufl,     186^',  Das  Lied  Moses.     1862. 

(15)  University  of  Tubingen. 

Prof.  Julius  Grill.  Die  Erzvater  der  Menscheit.  1875 ;  Der 
achtundsechzigster  Psalm.     1883. 

(16)  University  of  Erlangen. 

Prof.  August  Kohler.  Lehrbuch  der  Biblischen  Geschichte. 
1889-90. 

(17)  University  of  Munich. 

Prof.  Fritz  Hommel.  Die  Setnitischen  Volker  und  Sprachen,  I. 
Ed.     1883. 

(18)  University  of  Jena. 

Prof.  Carl  Siegfried.  Hebrdi'iches  Worterbuch  zum  Alien  Tes- 
tatnente,  with  Stade,  ist  Abtheil.     1892. 

Prof.  JOHANN  G.  Stickel.     Das  Hohelied.     1888. 

fProf.  LUDWiG  DiESTEL,  Geschichte  des  Alten  Testamentes  in 
der  Christlichen  Kirche.  1869.  Der  Prophet  Jesaia.  4te 
Aufl.     1872. 

(19)  Other  Scholars. 

John  Hollenberg.  Die  deuteronomischen  Bestandtheile  des  B. 
Joshaia  \n  thQ  Stud,  und  Krit.     1874. 


134  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

George  Ebers.     Egypt  en  u?td  die  Slicker  Moses.     1868. 

Gust  A  V  Karpeles.     Geschichte  der  Judischen  Literaiur.     1886, 

Julius  LiPPERT.  AUgemeine  Geschichte  des  Priesierthujns.     1883. 

Max  DUNCKER.      The  History  of  Aniiqitify.     iSjj. 

S.  Maybaum.  Die  Eniwickeliiiig  des  altisraelitischen  Priester- 
thums.     1 880. 

Julius  Popper,     Der  Ursprung  des  Monotheismns.     1879. 

tKARL  HeinriCH  Graf.  Der  Prophet  Jeremia.  1862.  Die 
geschichtliche  Biicher  des  Altett  Testaments  in  Merx  Archiv. 
1866-68. 

tL.  Herzfeld.     Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel.     1847-57. 

These  are  chiefly  the  professors  in  the  Old  Testament  depart- 
ment in  the  German  universities  who  have  expressed  themselves 
in  favor  of  modern  critical  views  of  the  Hexateuch  and  Isaiah.  If 
there  is  any  professor  in  the  Old  Testament  department  of  any 
Germanuniversity  who  holds  the  traditional  theory  of  the  Hexa- 
teucn  and  the  book  of  Isaiah  we  do  not  know  his  name.  He  has 
not  spoken  his  opinion.  In  1866  the  writer  was  a  student  of 
Hengstenberg,  who  was  a  great  and  influential  man,  having 
taught  several  thousand  students  in  his  class-rooms.  Hengs- 
tenberg was  supported  by  Havernick  and  Keil.  Not  one  of  his 
students  now  represents  his  views  in  any  university  in  Germany. 
The  writer  was  convinced  by  Hengstenberg 's  methods  in  his  class- 
room that  he  was  wrong.  We  know  of  others  who  went  through 
the  same  experience.  What  Hengstenberg  could  not  accom- 
plish, it  is  vain  to  think  that  any  American  or  English  Old  Tes- 
tament professor  can  do. 

We  shall  now  give  the  names  of  authorities  in 

II.  Other  Countries  of  the  Continent  of  Europe. 

(i)  Switzerland. 

(a)  University  of  Basle. 

Prof.  Konrad  VON  Orelli.  Die  Alttesiamentliche  Weissagungen 
von  der  Vollendung  des  Gottesreiches.  1882.  Old  Testament 
Prophecy  of  the  Consumtnatioti  of  God's  Kingdom.  1885.  Die 
Propheten  Jesaia  tmd  Jerctniah.  1886.  ^The  Prophecies  of 
Isaiah.  1889.  Das  Buch  Ezechiel  und  die  zwolf  kleinen 
Propheten.  1888.  Theologie  des  Alt  en  Testaments  in  ZOck- 
ler's  Handbuch  der  theologischen  Wissenschaften.     1889. 

Prof.  Bernhard  DUHM,     Die  Theologie  der  Propheten.     1875. 

Prof.  Karl  Marti.  Die  Spuren  der  sogenannten  Grundschrift  des 
Hexateuchs  in  der  vorexilischen  Propheten.  J.  P.  T.  1880. 
Der  Prophet  Jeretnia.     1889. 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  I35 

(b)  University  of  Bern. 

Prof.  Samuel  Oettli.  Die  geschichtUchen  Hagiographen  und 
das  Buck  Daniel.     1889. 

(c)  University  of  Zurich. 

Prof.  Victor  Ryssel.  De  Elohistae  Pentateuchi  Sermons.  1878. 
Uniersuchungen  iiber  die  Textgestalt  und  die  Echtheit  des 
Bitches  Micha.     1887. 

(d)  University  of  Geneva. 

Prof.  Edourd  Montet.  Essai  sur  les  origines  des  partis  Sadu- 
cien  et  Pharisieti.  1883.  Reviews  of  Reuss,  Vemes,  and 
others,  in  R.  H.  R.,  xv.  xxi.  xxii. 

(e)  University  of  Lausanne. 

Prof.  H.  VuiLLEUMiER.  Articles  in  the  Revue  de  Thcologie  et  de 
Philosophie.     1 882-1 883. 

(f )  Free  Church  College,  Lausanne. 

Prof.  LuciEN  Gautier.   Le  Mission  du  ProphHe  Ezichiel.    1 891. 

(2)  University  of  Dorpat,  Russia. 

Prof.  Wilhelm  Volck.  Die Biblische  Hermeneutik,  in  ZOckler's 
Handbuch  der  Theologischen  Wissenscha/ten,  3te  Aufl.     1889. 

(3)  France. 

(a)  The  Theological  Faculty  at  Montaubon. 

Prof.  Charles  Bruston.  Histoire  critique  de  la  literature 
prophctiqiie  des  Hebreux  depuis  les  origines  jusqu'a  la  mart 
d'Isaie.  1881  ;  Lcs  quatre  sources  des  lois  de  I'Exode.  1883; 
Les  deux  Jehovistcs.  R.  T.  P.  1885;  La  niort  et  la  sepulture 
de  Jacob.     Z.  A.  T. 

Prof.  Ferdinand  Montet.  Le  Deutironome  et  la  question  de 
I'Hexateuque.     1891. 

(b)  College  of  France,  Paris. 

Prof.  Albert  Reville.    Review  of  Kuenen  in  R.  H.  R.  xxii. 
Prof.  Ernest  Renan.     Histoire  du  Peuple  d' Israel.     1887-91. 

(c)  The  High  School  in  tho  Sorbonne. 

Prof.  A.  Carriere.  Review  of  Kuenen' s  Hexateuch  in  R.  H.  R. 
xiii.  206. 

Prof.  Maurice  Vernes.  Article,  Pentateuque,  in  Lichtenberger's 
Encyclopedia,  x.,  p.  447.  Une  nouvelle  hypotkese  sur  la  Ccm- 
posiiion  du  Deutcronome.  1887.  Prices  d' Histoire  Juive. 
1889.     Essais  bibliqttes.     1891. 

Prof.  James  DarmSTETTER.  Die  Philosophie  der  Geschichte  des 
Judischen  Volkes.  \ZZ\.  Les  prophetes  d' Israel  in  R.D.M. 
1891. 


136  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOK  BRIGGS 

(d)  Other  Scholars. 

GusTAVE  d' Eighth AL.    Milanges  de  critique  Biblique.     1886. 

F.  H.  Kruger.     Essai  sur  la  thiologie  d'Esaie,  xl.-lxvi.     1881. 

Charles  Piepenbring.  Histoire  des  lieux  de  culte  et  du  sacer- 
doce  e7t  Israel.  R.  H.  R.  xxiv.  i,  2.  Thiologie  de  I'Ancien 
Testament.   1886. 

Alexandre  Westphal.    Les  sources  du  Pentatettque.     1888-92. 

L.  Horst.  Etudes  sur  le  Deutironome.  R.  H.  R.  1887,  1888, 
1 89 1 .     Leviticus  X  VII. -XX  VI.  mid  Hesekiel.     1 88 1 . 

Isidore  Loeb.    La  Utterature  des pauvres  dans  la  Bible.    R.  E.  J. 

xxiii. 
t  pRANgoiS  Lenormant.     The  Beginnings  of  History,  edited  by 

Francis  Brown.     1882. 

(4)  Italy.     Institute  of  Florence. 

Prof.  David  Castelli.  La  Profezia  nella  Bibbia.  1882.  Storia 
degV  Israelite.  1887.  La  Legge  del  Popolo  Ebreo  nel  suo 
svolgimejito  storico.     1884. 

(5)  Holland. 

(a)  University  of  Leiden. 

Prof.  Cornelis  Petrus  Tiele.  Vergelijkende  Geschiedenis  der 
Egyptische  en  Mesopotafnische  Godsdicnsien.  1869-72.  Otit^ 
li?tes  of  the  History  of  Religion  to  the  spread  of  the  Universal 
Religions.     4th  edition.     1884. 

Prof.  Henricus  Oort.      The  Bible  for  Learners.     1878-9. 

tABRAHAM  KUENEN.  The  Religion  of  Israel.  1874-5;  The 
Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel,  1877.  Hist.-crit.  Otiderzoek 
ftaar  het  Ontstaan  en  de  Verzanieling  van  de  Boeken  des  Ouden 
Verbonds.    2de  uitgave.     1885-1889;   The  Hexateuch.     1886. 

(b)  University  of  Utrecht. 

Prof.  J.  J.  P.  Valeton.  Jesaja  volgens  zijne  algemeen  als  echt 
erkende  Schriften.  1871.  Beteekemis  en  gebrijik  van  het  word 
Thord  in  het  Oude   Testa7nent  in  the    Theologische  Studien. 

(c)  University  of  Groningen. 

Prof.  G.  Wildeboer.  Het  Ontstaan  van  den  Kanon  des  Ouden 
Verbonds.  1889.  De  Pe?itateuch-Kritik  en  het  Mozaische 
Strafrecht  m  Tigdschrift  von  Strafrecht.     1890-i. 

(d)  University  of  Amsterdam. 

Prof.  Chantepie  De  La  Saussaye.  Lehrbuch  der  Religions- 
geschichte.     2  Bde.     1887-89. 

Prof.  J.  Knappert.     The  Religion  of  Israel.     1878. 


THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  I37 

(6)  Austria. 
Prof.  Walter  Lotz  (Evangelical  Faculty  at  Vienna).     Quaes- 
tiones  de  Historia  Sabbati.     1883. 

Victor  FloiGL.     Geschichte  des  Semitischen  Altertums.     1882. 

III.     Great  Britain. 

The  chief  British  scholars  who  have  expressed  modern  critical 
views  are : 

(i)  University  of  Oxford. 
Prof.  Thomas  K.  Cheyne.    The  Prophecies  of  IsaiaJi.   3d  edition. 
1884;    Jeremiah,  his  life  and  times.     1888;   The  Origift  and 
Religiotis  contents  of  the  Psalter.     1891. 

Prof.  Samuel  R.  Driver.  Critical  Notes  on  the  International  Sun- 
day-School Lessofts  from  the  Pentateuch.  1887  ;  Isaiah,  his  life 
ajid  times.  1888.  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old 
Testa7nent  in  the  International  Theological  Library.  2d 
edition.     1892. 

(2)  University  of  Cambridge. 

Prof.  Alexander  T.  Kirkpatrick.    The  Divine  Library  of  the 

Old  Testament.     1891. 
Prof.  W.  Robertson  Smith.      The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish 

Church.     2d    edition.      1892;    The  Prophets  of  Israel   and 

their  place  in  History.     1882  ;  Lectures  on  the  Religioti  of  the 

Se7nites.     1 889. 
Prof.  Herbert  E.  Ryle.    The  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament.    1892. 

Prof.  Vincent  H.  Stanton.  The  Jewish  and  the  Christian 
Messiah.      1886. 

(3)  Manchester  New  College. 

Prof.  James  Drummond.     The  Jewish  Messiah.     1877. 

Prof.  J.  E.  Carpenter.  The  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  in  th.Q  Modern 
Review.     1883. 

(4)  Wesleyan  College,  Richmond. 

Prof.  W.  T.  Davison.  Inspiration  afid  Biblical  Criticism.  A 
Paper  read  at  the  London  Wesleyan  ministers'  meeting, 
March  16,  1891. 

(5)  Countess  of  Huntingdon's  College,  Cheshunt. 

t*rof.  Owen  C.  Whitehouse.  Franz  Delitzsch  and  Attg.  Dill- 
mann  on  the  Pentateuch.  Expositor,  Feb.,  1888.  Review  of 
Cheyne  s  Origin  and  Religious  Contents  of  the  Psalter  in  Criti- 
cal Review,  Jan.,  1892. 

(6)  United  College  (Independent),  Yorkshire. 

Prof.  Archibald  Duff,  Jr.     Old  Testament  Theology.    1892. 


138  THE  EVIDENCE  OF   PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

(7)  University  of  Glasgow. 

Prof.  James  Robertson.     The  Early  Religion  of  Israel,    1892. 

(8)  University  of  Aberdeen. 

Prof.  A.  R.  S.  Kennedy.  Articles  on  Canon  Driver  and  the 
Pentateuch,  in  the  Expository  Times,  Nov.,  1891,  and  Jan.,  1892. 

(9)  Free  College  (Presbyterian),  Edinburgh. 

Prof.  Andrew  B.  Davidson.  Articles  on  Isaiah,  xl.-lxvi.,  in 
the  Expositor.     1883,  1884. 

(10)  Free  College  (Presbyterian),  Glasgow. 

Prof.  George  A.  Smith.     The  Book  0/  Isaiah.    1890. 

(11)  Other  Scholars. 

Samuel  Davidson.    Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament.    1862-3. 

Bishop  J.  J.  Stewart  Perowne.  The  Age  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Contemporary  Review,  1888,  Jan.  and  Feb. 

G.  J.  Spurrell.     Notes  on  the  Hebrew  Text  of  Genesis.     1887. 

C.  H.  H.  Wright.  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament.  Third 
Edition.     1891. 

Robert  F.  Horton.  Inspiration  and  the  Bible.  Third  Edition. 
1891. 

H.  A.  Giles.     Hebrew  and  Christian  Records.     1877. 

C.  G.  Montefiore.  Recent  Criticism  upon  Moses  and  the  Penta- 
teuch in  the  Jewish  Quarterly  Review,  Jan.,  1891.  Some  Notes 
on  the  Effects  of  Biblical  Criticism  upon  the  Jewish  Religion. 
Ibid.     J-an.,  1892. 

F.  W.  Farrar.     The  Minor  Prophets.     1890. 

C.  J.  Ball.     The  Prophecies  of  Jeremiah.     1891. 

P.  Ray  Hunter.    After  the  Exile.    1890. 

BUCHAN  Blake.     How  to  Read  Isaiah.     1891. 

W.  E.  Addis.  The  Documents  of  the  Hexateuch  translated  and 
arrattged  in  Chronological  order,  with  Introduction  and  Notes. 
1892. 

Joseph  Jacobs.  Recent  Researches  in  Biblical  Arc hcBology  ;  Are 
there  Totem-clans  in  the  Old  Testament.  Arch  ecological  Re- 
view, 1889. 

•j-M.  KaliSCH.  Historical  and  Critical  Commentary  on  Genesis, 
1858.     Exodus,  1855.    Leviticus,  1867,  1872. 


THE  EVIDENCE   OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  139 

tM  ATTHEW  Arnold.  The  great  prophecy  of  Israel 's  Restoration. 
Fourth  Edition.     1875. 

tSAMUEL  Sharp.  History  of  the  Hebrew  Nation.  Fourth  Edi- 
tion.    1882. 

tARTHUR  P.  Stanley.  The  Jewish  Church.  Seventh  Edition. 
1877. 

tJOHN  William  Colenso.  The  Pentateuch  and  Book  of  Joshua 
Critically  Examined.     1862-79. 


IV.  America. 

(i)  Harvard  University. 
Prof.  Crawford  H.   Toy.     Judaism  and  Christianity.    1890. 
History  of  the  Religion  of  Israel.     Third  Edition.     1 884. 

Prof.  David  G.  Lyon.  Results  of  Modern  Biblical  Criticism. 
O.  T.  S.     1883. 

(2)  Yale  University. 

Prof.  George  T.  Ladd.    The  Doctrine  of  Sacred  Scripture.  1883. 

(3)  University  of  Pennsylvania. 

Prof.  John  P.  Peters.  The  Scriptures,  Hebrew  and  Christian. 
1886.  Jacob's  Blessing.  J.  B.  L.  1886.  The  Date  of  Leviti- 
cus.   J.  B.  L.     1888. 

Prof.  Morris  Jastrow,  Jr.  The  Bible  in  the  light  of  Modern 
Criticism,  in  the  American  Hebrew.     1886. 

(4)  University  of  Chicago. 

Pres.  William  R.  Harper.  The  Pentateuchal  Question,  He- 
braica.     1888-1890. 

Prof.  EmilG.  Hirsch.  Modern  Views  of  the  Bible.  A  memorial 
discourse  on  Professor  Kuenen.  Reform  Advocate,  Jan.,  1892. 

(5)  Johns  Hopkins  University. 

Prof.  Paul  Haupt.  The  Cuneiform  Account  of  the  Deluge. 
O.  T.  S.     1884. 

(6)  Andover  Theological  Seminary. 

Prof.  George  F.  Moore.  Tatian's  Diatessaron  and  the  Analysis 
of  the  Pentateuch.    J.  B.  L.  ix.  1889. 


140.  THE  EVIDENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

(7)  Chicago  Theological  Seminary. 

Prof.  Samuel  Ives  Curtiss.  The  Higher  Criticism :  Some  of  its 
Results.     Independent,  July  30,  1891. 

(8)  Lancaster  Theological  Seminary. 

Prof,  Frederick  A.  Gast.  Pentateuch  Criticism:  Its  History 
and  Present  State.  Reformed  Quarterly  Review,  April  and 
July,  1882. 

(9)  Victoria  University,  Coburg,  Canada. 

Prof.  George  C.  Workman.  The  Text  of  Jeremiah.  1889. 
Messianic  Prophecy,  in  the  Canadian  Methodist  Quarterly. 
1890  (2). 

(10)  Lane  Theological  Seminary. 

Prof.  Henry  P.  Smith.  The  Critical  Theories  of  Julius  Well- 
hausen,  in  the  Presbyterian  Review,  III.  2.  Biblical  Scholar- 
ship and  Inspiration.     1 89 1 . 

(11)  P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia. 

Dean  E.  T.  Bartlett.  The  Scriptures:  Hebrew  and  Christian. 
1886. 

Prof.  L.  W.  Batten.  The  Historical  Movement  traceable  in 
Isaiah  xl.-lxvi.,  in  the  Andover  Review,  Aug.,  1891. 

(12)  Episcopal  Theological  School,  Cambridge. 

Prof.  M.  L.  Kellner.  The  Deluge  in  the  Izdubar  Epic  and  the 
Old  Testament.    American  Church  Review.     1889. 

(13)  Union  Theological  Seminary,  N.  Y. 

Prof.  Charles  A.  Briggs.  Biblical  Study.  Fourth  Edition.  1891. 
Messianic  Prophecy.  1888.  Whither?  Third  Edition.  1890. 
Biblical  History.  1889.  The  Authority  of  Holy  Scripture. 
Third  Edition.     1891. 

Prof.  Francis  Brown.  The  New  Testament  Witness  to  Old 
Testament  Books.  J.  S.  B.  L.  Is  the  Higher  Criticism  Scien- 
tific? Homiletic  Review,  April,  1892.  Hebrew  and  English 
Lexicon  of  the  Old  Testament.  Part  I.,  1892.  With  the  co- 
operation of  S.  R.  Driver  and  C.  A.  Briggs. 


THE  EVIDENCE   OF   PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  14,1 

(t4)  Other  American  Scholars. 

R.  Heber  Newton.     The  right  and  wrong  uses  of  the  Bible. 
1883.      The  Book  of  the  Bigin7iings.     1884. 

Washington  Gladden.     Who  Wrote  the  Bible  f    1891. 

Benjamin  Wisner  Bacon.     The  Genesis  of  Genesis.    1892. 

John  W.  Chadwick.     The  Bible  of  To-day.     1879. 

Adolph   Moses.     Nadab  und  Abihu  oder  der   Untergang  der 
Sauliden.     1890. 

tMiCHAEL  Heilprin.     The  Historical  Poetry  of  the  Ancient  He- 
brews.    1 879. 

The  list  of  British  and  American  scholars  who  hold  to  the 
documentary  theory  of  the  composition  of  the  Hexateuch  and 
Isaiah  is  quite  incomplete,  because  a  large  number  of  Professors 
who  hold  these  views  have  not  written  upon  the  subject.  The 
number  of  Professors  in  the  Old  Testament  department  who 
hold  to  the  traditional  theory  may  be  counted  on  one's  fingers. 
Under  these  circumstances  it  ought  to  be  plain  to  every  intelli- 
gent person,  that  the  traditionalists  are  in  such  a  hopeless  minority 
that  it  is  extremely  improbable  that  they  will  ever  be  able  to  over- 
come the  weight  of  scholarship  throughout  the  world  which  is 
so  overwhelmingly  on  the  critical  side.  And  even  if  any  one 
should  suppose  that  there  are  perils  in  the  methods  and  results 
of  the  Higher  Criticism,  it  is,  to  say  the  least,  unwise,  in  view  of 
the  enormous  literature  on  the  critical  side  and  its  influence  ex- 
tending so  widely  and  so  rapidly,  to  risk  the  authority  of  the 
Bible  upon  the  maintenance  of  the  traditional  theory,  and  to 
assert,  as  some  foolish  people  do,  that  the  scores  of  evangelical 
critics  are  destroying  the  Bible. 

The  great  majority  of  the  writings  mentioned  above  have  been 
examined  by  the  author.  But  for  a  number  of  them  he  has  re- 
lied upon  the  testimony  of  his  friends,  Profs.  Toy,  Moore,  Henry 
P.  Smith,  Peters,  Brown,  Driver,  and  Gottheil,  who  have  kindly 
given  him  their  assistance. 

These  are  submitted  without  reading,  in  accordance 
with  the  ruling  of  the  Presbytery. 

All  this  evidence,  whether  read  or  not  read,  is  filed  in 
so  far  as  it  bears  upon  the  case.  C.  A.  Briggs. 


VI. 

THE  EXCEPTIONS  TAKEN  BY  PROF.  BRIGGS  TO  THE 
NEW  MATTER  INTRODUCED  BY  THE  PROSECUTION 
JNTO   THEIR  ARGUMENT   IN   REBUTTAL. 

On  December  19th,  Prof.  Briggs  raised  the  question 
whether  the  prosecution  had  a  right  of  rebuttal,  accord- 
ing to  the  Book  of  Discipline. 

Dr.  Briggs — Before  the  prosecution  proceeds,  I  wish 
to  have  some  rules  adopted  by  the  house.  It  is  very 
evident  from  the  Book  of  Discipline  that  they  have  no 
right  to  present  any  further  argument.  I  may  say  that 
I  would  not  myself  make  this  objection  were  it  not 
necessary  as  a  party.  The  only  provision  of  the  Book 
of  Discipline  on  this  subject  is,  "  And  then  the  parties 
themselves  shall  be  heard."  The  prosecution  have  no 
right  of  rebuttal,  according  to  the  Book.  I  make  that 
point,  Mr.  Moderator,  and  1  shall  ask  a  ruling  upon  it— 
that  the  prosecution  have  no  right  of  rebuttal,  according 
to  the  Book.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  make  no  objec- 
tion to  their  speaking  in  rebuttal  for  a  reasonable  time, 
provided  they  ask  that  privilege  of  the  house,  and  the 
house  grants  it.  I  am  not  objecting  to  the  prosecution 
having  a  right  of  rebuttal,  if  the  house  gives  it  to  them ; 
but  I  do  object  to  their  assuming  that  they  have  a  right 
according  to  the  Book.     The  prosecution,  as  you  will 

(143) 


144  EXCEPTIONS  TAKEN  BY  PROF.   BRIGGS 

remember,  have  insisted  on  the  letter  of  the  law  from 
the  beginning.  When  I  have  in  the  course  of  the  argu- 
ment called  your  attention  to  precedents  of  our  courts, 
they  have  said,  "  Oh,  we  have  a  new  Book  of  Discipline  ; 
we  must  stick  closely  to  the  new  Book."  Now  they  are 
in  exactly  the  fix  that  they  have  put  me  in  all  the  way 
through.  They  have  asked  the  pound  of  flesh,  and  up 
to  this  time  you  have  given  it  to  them.  The  question 
now  is,  whether  they  shall  have  the  blood  also.  Now, 
Mr.  Moderator,  I  ask  your  ruling  as  to  whether  they 
have  that  right.  If  the  Moderator  decides  they  have 
the  right,  I  shall  appeal  to  the  house.  Then  if  the  house 
decides  in  my  favor  I  shall  not  object  to  a  motion  that 
they  have  a  certain  time  given  them.  But  I  shall  ask, 
to  save  time,  that  there  shall  be  a  ruling  to  this  effect  i 
that  the  prosecution  be  required  to  limit  themselves 
strictly  to  rebuttal ;  that  they  shall  not  be  allowed  to 
traverse  the  whole  case  and  bring  in  a  new  argument 
against  me,  and  force  me  to  prepare  a  reply  at  this  late 
time,  when  my  strength  is  well-nigh  exhausted  and  when 
the  patience  of  this  house  is  well-nigh  exhausted.  I 
called  upon  them,  you  remember,  at  the  conclusion  of 
their  argument,  to  know  if  they  had  anything  more  to 
say,  and,  if  so,  to  say  it ;  so  that  I  might  know  all  there 
was  against  me,  and  might  be  able  to  reply  to  it.  And 
I  very  much  believe,  from  their  procedure  in  the  higher 
court  last  May,  and  from  certain  other  things  that  they 
have  claimed  upon  this  floor,  that  they  will  claim  the 
right  to  do  exactly  what  they  please.  That  is  the  right 
they  have  claimed  all  the  time,  and  it  is  a  right  which  I, 
as  a  party,  cannot  concede  at  this  time.  There  is  one 
other  point,  Mr.  Moderator,  and  that  is  that  they  shall 
be  distinctly  prohibited  from  using  in  this  rebuttal  any 
material  that  they  have  prepared  prior  to  the  delivery  of 


TO  NEW  MATTER  INTRODUCED  BY  PROSECUTION      145 

my  argument.  I  apprehend  that  a  very  large  portion 
of  the  argument  of  Dr.  Lampe  has  been  prepared  for 
months  and  months  before  I  appeared  in  my  defense. 
I  claim  the  justice  of  this  house.  I  ask  no  indulgence 
and  no  mercy  from  any  one.  I  ask  the  justice  of  this 
house,  that  they  shall  be  prohibited  from  bringing  in 
here  at  this  stage  of  the  argument  anything  not  prepared 
in  answer  to  my  argument  here,  thus  forcing  you  to  go 
into  Christmas  week  and  hold  sessions  of  this  court, 
when  we  are  all  exhausted,  and  when  some  members  of 
the  court  must  retire  and  lose  their  vote  in  order  to  save 
their  health  or  their  lives.  I  claim  that  it  is  not  just  for 
them  to  bring  in  at  this  stage  a  long  argument  which 
was  prepared  months  and  months  ago.  If,  with  these 
restrictions  and  this  understanding,  they  can  be  allowed 
to  speak  for  a  limited  time,  I  shall  not  object ;  but  un- 
less these  restrictions  are  made,  I  object.  I  ask  you, 
Mr.  Moderator,  to  please  rule  on  my  first  point. 

The  Moderator— The  Moderator  is  impelled  to 
decide  that  the  question  of  order  is  not  well  taken,  and 
for  these  reasons : 

First:  That  the  usage  in  such  cases  is  against  the 
point  which  is  raised. 

Second:  That  usage  is  based  upon  the  law  of  the 
church  governing  complaints  and  appeals,  which  dis- 
tinctly give  us  this  order  of  the  opening  and  the  closing 
being  on  the  part  of  those  who  present  their  case — the 
greater  including  the  less. 

Third:  That  the  parties  cannot  have  been  said  to 
have  been  heard  until  the  prosecution  has  had  a  full 
opportunity  to  present  its  whole  case.  It  has  only  pre- 
sented a  part  of  that  case  so  far.  It  has  taken  a  very 
small  portion  of  time  compared  with  that  accorded  to 
the  defendant.     You  have  heard  the  defendant  patiently 


146  EXCEPTIONS  TAKEN  BY  PROF.   BRIGGS 

and  fully,  as  you  should  have  done ;  and  now,  in  the 
view  of  the  Moderator,  it  is  only  fair,  it  is  only  in 
accordance  with  our  usage  and  with  the  principle  of  our 
Book,  that  the  prosecution  should  be  heard  fully,  but 
not  presenting  new  matter. 

Prof.  Briggs  then  appealed  from  the  decision  of  the 
Moderator. 

The  Moderator  was  sustained  by  a  majority  of  the 
Presbytery. 

B. 

Exception  taken  Dec.  2ist,  1892. 

Mr.  Moderator  and  Brethren — I  beg  leave  to 
take  exception  to  that  part  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
Presbytery  of  yesterday,  recorded  in  the  stenographer's 
report,  which  permitted  the  Rev.  Dr.  Lampe,  arguing 
on  behalf  of  the  prosecution  under  the  cloak  of  a  re- 
buttal, to  introduce  new  evidence  and  new  matter,  and, 
in  large  measure,  to  reargue  the  Amended  Charges  and 
Specifications  apart  from  and  without  regard  to  the 
Argument  of  the  accused;  in  that  (i)  he  introduced 
new  evidence  without  the  permission  of  Presbytery,  and 
without  notification  to  the  accused,  as  follows  :  Henry 
B.  Smith's  sermon  on  Inspiration ;  Presbyterian  and 
Reformed  Review,  1892;  Article  in  the  Co7igregatio7i- 
alist,  Feb.  21,  1889;  John  Ball's  Catechism;  The  Bible 
Doctrine  of  Inspiration;  Farrar's  Life  of  St.  Paid, 
Homiletical  Review,  May,  1891;  Westcott's  Introduc- 
tion to  the  Gospels ;  D'Aubign^'s  History  of  the  Refor- 
mation, Life  of  Calvin,  Chap.  IV. ;  and  also  a  consider- 
able number  of  extracts  from  the  Works  of  Luther  and 
Calvin. 

(2).  In  that  he  introduced  new  matter,  as  for  example, 
an  argument  on  the  metaphysical  categories  from  the 


TO  NEW  MATTER  INTRODUCED  BY  PROSECUTION      14.^ 

usage  of  Aristotle  and  Kant ;  an  argument  from  the  use 
of  the  Old  Testament  by  Christ  and  His  apostles ;  an 
argument  from  the  dynamic  theory  of  inspiration ;  an 
argument  from  the  stress  laid  upon  single  words  of  the 
Old  Testament  by  New  Testament  writers. 

(3).  In  that  he  argued  in  more  than  three-fourths  of 
his  argument  against  the  statements  of  the  Inaugural 
Address,  the  Response  to  the  Original  Charges,  the  Lec- 
tures on  the  Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Reason,  and  the 
other  writings  of  the  accused,  and  in  not  more  than  one- 
fourth  of  it  was  it  an  effort  in  rebuttal  of  the  argument 
of  the  accused  ;  namely,  Stenographer's  Report  [a]  pp. 
1120,  1126,  as  far  as  "  It  is  of  the  utmost  importance." 
[b]  p.  1131,  beginning  with  "Dr.  Briggs'  argument,"  as 
far  as  "  It  is  not  our  faith,"  p.  1133.  [c]  p.  1136,  as  far 
as  "through  the  word  of  God,"  p.  1137.  [d]  the  refer- 
ence to  Isaiah  viii.  20,  on  p.  1141;  [e]  and  to  i  John  v. 
10  on  pp.  1144-1145  ;  [f]  pp.  1147-1152,  as  far  as  "We 
are  not  raising  the  question."  [g]  a  brief  allusion  to 
my  interpretation  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  I.,  section 
I,  on  p.  1 163.  [h]  a  brief  reference  to  passages  cited 
by  me  from  Luther  on  p.  118 1.  [i]  and  to  passages 
cited  by  me  from  Calvin,  pp.  1 185-6;  and  of  these 
c,  d,  h  and  i  may  have  been  written  in  view  of  the  evi- 
dence adduced  in  T/ic  Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Reason, 
before  the  delivery  of  the  argument  for  the  defense. 

C.  A.  Briggs. 
C. 
Exception  take?i  Dec.  22,   1892. 

I  beg  leave  to  take  exception  to  that  part  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Presbytery  of  yesterday,  recorded  in  the 
Stenographical  Report,  which  permitted  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Lampe,  arguing  in  behalf  of  the  prosecution,  under  the 


148  EXCEPTIONS  TAKEN  BY  PROF.  BRIGGS 

cloak  of  a  rebuttal,  to  introduce  new  evidence,  and  new 
matter,  and,  in  large  measure,  to  reargue  the  Amended 
Charges  and  Specifications  apart  from  and  without  re- 
gard to  the  Argument  of  the  accused ;  in  that  (i)  he 
introduced  new  evidence  without  the  permission  of 
Presbytery,  and  without  notification  to  the  accused,  as 
follows:  John  Goodwin's  Divine  Authority  of  tlie  Scrip- 
tures; Capel's  Remains;  Matthew  Poole's  Commentary; 
Baxter's  Reasotis  of  the  Christian  Religion;  ChilHng- 
worth's  Works^NoX.  i;  Henry  Hammond's  Paraphrases; 
Lightfoot's  Difficulties  of  Scripture;  Timothy  Dwight's 
Sermotts ;  Jonathan  Dickinson's  Sermons;  Samuel 
Davies'  Sermons;  Jonathan  Edwards*  Works;  S.  S. 
Smith's  Principles  of  Natural  and  Revealed  Religion  ; 
Sprague's  Annals;  McWhorter's  Sermons;  Wither- 
spoon's  Works;  Ashbel  Green's  Lectures  on  the  Shorter 
Catechism;  Archibald  Alexander's  Canon;  Gardiner 
Spring's  Bible  not  of  Man;  Albert  Barnes'  Commen- 
taries; Skinner's  Discussions  in  Theology ;  Augustine's 
Letters;  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  1892;  Liddon's  Divinity  of 
our  Lord. 

(2).  In  that  he  introduced  new  matter,  as  for  exam- 
ple :  an  argument  on  verbal  inspiration  and  dictation ; 
an  argument  against  an  errant  Bible ;  an  argument 
against  a  statement  of  the  Response ;  an  argument 
against  rationalistic  critics  ;  an  argument  from  predictive 
prophecy;  an  argument  against  the  theory  of  accommo- 
dation ;  an  argument  against  the  errancy  of  Jesus. 

(3).  In  that  he  argued  in  more  than  two-thirds  of  his 
argument  against  the  statements  of  the  Inaugural  Ad- 
dress, the  Response  to  the  original  Charges,  the  Lectures 
on  the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason,  and  the  other 
writings  of  the  accused  ;  and  in  not  more  than  one-third 
of  it  can  it  be  recognized  as  an  effort  in  rebuttal  of  the 


TO  NEW  MATTER  INTRODUCED  BY  PROSECUTION      I49 

argument  of  the  accused ;  and  in  this  part  the  argument 
can  be  considered  as  rebuttal  only  in  so  far  as  the  argu- 
ment for  the  defence  included  certain  portions  of  The 
Bible,  the  Church  ajid  the  Reason  ;  and  all  of  this  with 
the  exception  of  the  two  lines—"  This  is  substantially 
the  view  of  Dr.  Briggs,  as  shown  by  the  documents  put 
in  your  hands  by  him  "  (p.  1241  Stenographical  Report), 
and  possibly  of  these  also,  was  probably  composed  be- 
fore the  delivery  of  the  Argument  for  the  defence,  for 
there   is  no  other  reference    to  that  argument  in  the 

argument  of  Dr.  Lampe  yesterday. 
^  C.  A.  Briggs. 

D. 

The  Exception  taken  to  the  new  matter  included  in  Dr. 

Lampe' s  printed  argument,  but  not  delivered  by  him 

before  the  Presbytery,  Dec.  22d,  1892. 

Prof.  Briggs— And  now,  Mr.  Moderator,  I  wish  to 
make  a  request  of  the  Presbytery,  namely,  that  they  shall 
direct  Dr.  Lampe  to  specify  what  portions  of  the  printed 
argument  put  in  our  hands  have  not  been  read  on  this 
floor.  I  make  this  request — not  to  exclude  any  part  of 
his  argument  from  consideration ;  if  they  wish  to  have 
it  incorporated  in  the  stenographic  report,  I  for  one  shall 
make  no  objection — but  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  know 
what  I  am  to  except  to;  and  there  are  matters  con- 
tained in  this  printed  argument  which  were  not  read 
before  us  and  which  I  want  to  except  to  and  which  I 
cannot  except  to  unless  they  are  recognized  as  before 
the  court.  Therefore,  I  request  that  Dr.  Lampe  shall 
specify  what  portions  of  his  printed  argument  have  not 
been  presented  to  the  court. 

The  Moderator — I  think  that  is  a  proper  request 
to  make. 


150  EXCEPTIONS   TAKEN  BY  PROF.   BRIGGS 

[After  a  few  moments  of  discussion.] 

The  Moderator — Would  not  this  relieve  the  diffi- 
culty :  If  Dr.  Lampe  be  allowed  to  incorporate  the 
printed  form  in  the  stenographer's  notes,  just  as  matter 
submitted  by  you  has  been  incorporated  ? 

Dr.  Briggs — Yes,  if  the  house  will  take  the  same 
action  in  this  case  as  it  took  in  my  case.  I  think  the 
house  should  take  the  action,  however. 

The  Moderator — The  question,  then,  is  for  the  house 
to  decide,  namely,  that  Dr.  Lampe  has  power  to  incor- 
porate in  the  stenographer's  minutes  the  argument  in 
printed  form  as  presented,  including  the  portions  omitted 
in  reading. 

It  was  so  ordered. 

The  Exception. 

Inasmuch  as  the  Presbytery  gave  Dr.  Lampe  "  power 
to  incorporate  in  the  Stenographer's  minutes  the  argu- 
ment in  printed  form  as  presented,  including  the  por- 
tion omitted  in  reading,"  I  beg  leave  to  take  exception 
to  that  part  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Presbytery  which 
permitted  Dr.  Lampe,  arguing  in  behalf  of  the  prosecu- 
tion, under  the  cloak  of  a  rebuttal  to  introduce  new 
evidence  as  follows : 

Alexander  on  Isaiah;  Rawlinson  in  Pulpit  Commen- 
tary; Ray,  Introduction,  in  Bible  Cojnmentary  ;  Manly 's 
Bible  Doctrine  of  Inspiration  ;  Hebraica,  October,  1 888  ; 
Prof.  John  Kennedy,  A  Popular  Argument  for  the  Unity 
of  Isaiah,  1891  ;  Prof.  John  Forbes,  The  Servant  of  the 
Lord  in  Israel,  xl-lxvi.,  1890;  Rector  F.  Watson,  The 
Law  and  the  Prophets,  Hulsean  Lecture  for  1882;  Prof. 
Stanley  Leathes,  The  Law  in  the  Prophets,  1891  ;  Very 
Rev.  R.  Payne-Smith,  The  Mosaic  Authorship  and  Credi- 
bility of  the  Pentateuch,  1869;  James  Sime,  F.R.S.E., 


TO  NEW  MATTER  INTRODUCED  BY  PROSECUTION     15X 

The  Kingdom  of  all  Israel,  1883;  Prof.  Robert  Watts, 
The  Newer  Criticism,  etc.,  1882  ;  Principal  Rainy,  The 
Bible  and  Criticism,  1878  ;  Bishop  A.  C.  Hervey,  The 
Books  of  Chronicles  in  Relation  to  the  Pentatench,  etc., 
1892  ;  Bishop  C.  J.  ElHcott,  Christus  Comprobator,  1S92; 
Rev,  Henry  Hayman,  D.D.,  Prophetic  Testimony  to  the 
Pentateuch,  Bib.  Sac,  1892;  Pastor  Tr.  Roos,  Die  Ge- 
schichtlichkeit  des  Pentateuchs,  1883;  Adolf  Zahn,  Z>«.y 
Deuteronomium,  1890;  Eduard  Bohl,  Zum  Gesetz  und 
zum  Zeugniss,  1883;  Pastor  G.  Schumann,  Die  Well- 
hausenische  Hypothese,  1892;  R.  S.  Poole,  Date  of  tJte 
Pentatctich,  Theory  and  Facts,  Qor\\..'R.^v\&\\,  1887;  Con- 
der,  Ancient  Men  and  Modern  Critics,  Cont.  Review,  1887  ; 
Edersheim,  Prophecy  and  History  in  Relation  to  the  Mes- 
siah, Warburton  Lectures,  1880-84:  Waller,  Is  Genesis  a 
Compilation?  Theological  Monthly,  1891  ;  Pastor  Nau- 
mann,  Das  Erste  Bnch  der  Bibel,  1890;  Prof.  William 
H.  Qtx&^n,  Moses  and  the  Pentateuch  Vindicated ;  Prof.  E. 
Cone  Bissell,  The  Pentateuch ;  Vos,  Mosaic  Origin  of 
the  Pentateuch  Codes,  1886;  Stebbins,  A  Study  of  the 
Pentateuch,  1881  ;  S.  C.  Bartlett,  Sources  of  History  in 
the  Pentateuch,  Stone  Lecture,  1882;  Rabbi  Wise,  Pro- 
naos  to  Holy  Writ,  1 89 1  ;  Lias,  Wellhausen  on  the  Peji- 
tateuch,  in  the  Theological  Review,  1890. 

C.  A.  Briggs. 


Exception  taken  December  22,th,  1892. 

I  beg  leave  to  take  exception  to  that  part  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Presbytery  of  Thursday  last,  recorded 
in  the  Stenographical  Report,  which  permitted  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Lampe,  arguing  in  behalf  of  the  prosecution,  under 
the  cloak  of  a  rebuttal,  to  introduce  new  evidence,  and 
new   matter,    and,   in   large   measure,    to   reargue    the 


152  EXCEPTIONS  TAKEN  BY  PROF.   BRIGGS 

Amended  Charges  and  Specifications  apart  from  and 
without  regard  to  the  Argument  of  the  accused  ;  in  that 
(i).  Dr.  Lampe  introduced  new  evidence  without  the  per- 
mission of  Presbytery,  and  without  notification  to  the 
accused,  as  follows : 

The  Andover  Review,  vol.  xiii. ;  Pepys  Diary;  F.  Hall's 
E^iglish  Adjectives ;  F.  Hall's  Modern  English. 

(2).  In  that  Dr.  Lampe  introduced  new  matter,  e.  g., 
an  argument  from  the  assumption  that  the  ministry  of 
the  word  will  not  continue  in  the  next  world,  and  an  ar- 
gument from  the  assumed  instantaneous  sanctification 
of  believers  at  the  second  advent. 

(3).  In  that  Dr.  Lampe  argued  for  the  most  part 
against  statements  of  the  Inaugural  Address,  the  Re- 
sponse to  the  Original  Charges,  the  article  "  Redemption 
after  Death,"  in  the  Magazine  of  Christian  Literature ; 
many  of  which,  such  as  those  referring  to  race  redemp- 
tion, the  moral  character  of  Abraham,  and  the  doctrine 
of  election,  were  not  included  in  the  Amended  Charges, 
and  the  argument  of  Dr.  Lampe  was  not  in  any  respect 
a  rebuttal  of  the  argument  of  the  accused,  of  which  ar- 
gument the  argument  of  Dr.  Lampe  on  the  sixth  Charge 
seems  entirely  unconscious. 

(4).  In  that  Dr.  Lampe  argued  on  the  seventh  Charge 
of  the  Amended  Charges,  which  the  Presbytery  directed 
the  prosecution  to  remove  from  the  list  of  Charges. 

(5).  In  that  Dr.  Lampe  argued  that  the  accused  was 
"under  the  influence  of  a  philosophical  principle  of 
Naturalism,"  a  matter  not  included  in  the  Charges. 

C.  A.  Briggs. 


TO  NEW  MATTER  INTRODUCED  BY  PROSECUTION     I53 

F. 

The  decision  of  the  Moderator  that  the  Prosecution  had 
introduced  new  matter. 

On  December  22d  there  was  considerable  discussion 
whether  the  prosecution  had  introduced  new  matter  into 
their  argument  on  rebuttal.  After  Prof,  Briggs  had  re- 
pHed  to  this  argument  of  the  prosecution,  the  Modera- 
tor made  the  following  decision  : 

"  The  Moderator  is  very  clearly  of  the  view,  already 
embodied  in  his  ruling,  that  the  Prosecuting  Committee 
had  the  right  to  open  and  to  close,  to  be  fully  heard  ; 
and  that  they  should  close,  provided  no  new  matter 
should  be  introduced.  New  matter  having  been  intro- 
duced in  the  view  of  the  Moderator,  Dr.  Briggs  has  now 
made  reply.  The  Moderator's  view  is,  and  his  decision 
is,  that  the  case  is  now  closed." 


VII. 

THE  FINAL  JUDGMENT  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY. 

A. —  The  vote  upon  the  Amended  Charges  and  Specifications  giving  the 
final  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  December  30,  1892. 

The  votes  are  given  upon  each  Specification  and  upon  each  item  of 
the  Charges.  N  indicates  not  sustained,  and  implies  acquittal.  .S"  indi- 
cates sustained,  and  implies  conviction. 


A — Ministers. 


I. 

II. 

■„.    1 

IV. 

V. 

VI. 

Ministers. 

1 

t/3 

I 

0 

1 

11 

1 

n 

n 

n 
s 

n 
s 
n 
n    I 

S     ! 

n    1 
n    r 
s    s 

s    s 
s    s 
n    r 

n   r 
n    r 
n    1 

n    r 

n    n 
n    r 
s    s 
n    n 
n    n 
n   n 
n   n 
n'  n 
n    n 
n    n 

n    n 

u 

.  h. 

s    s 
n    n 

1    n 
1    n 

1    n 
1    n 

is 

n 
s 

1 

n 

s 

s 
n 
s 
s 
n 
n 

s 

s 
s 

s 
n 

n 

i 

6 

n 

s 
s 

s 

s 
n 

s 
n 

n 

n 

n 

H 

n 
s 

1 

2 

n 
s 

n 
n 

s 

s 
s 

s 

n 

s 

s 
n 

n 
n 

n 

s 

n 
n 

n 
s 

s 

a. 

s 
n 

n 

n 
s 

n 

s 

s 

s 

n 
n 

s 
n 

n 
n 
s 
n 
n 

n 
n 

n 
s 

s 

n 

b. 

n 
s 
n 
n 

s 

s 
s 

s 

n 
n 

s 
n 

s 

\ 

s 

n 
n 

n 

n 
n 
n 
n 

n 

n 

n 

s 

n 

s 

n 

n 

s 

s 
s 

s 
n 

n 

n 

n 

s 
n 

n 
n 

n 

s 
n 

s 
n 

2 
n 

n 
n 

s 

s 
n 

n 
n 

\ 

s 
n 

\ 

\ 

s 

n 
n 

n 
n 
n 

a. 
n 

n 
n 

n 

s 

n 

s 

n 

n 

n 

s 
s 
n 
s 

n 
s 
n 
n 

n 

n 
n 

n 

n 

s 

b. 

n 
s 

n 
n 

s 
s 
n 

n 
n 

n 

s 

s 

s 
n 

n 

n 

s 

n 
n 

s 

s 

I  a 
n    n 

n   n 
n   n 
n   n 
n   n 

s'  s 
n   n 
S  1  s 
s    s 
n   n 
s  i  s 
n   n 
n   n 

n   n 

S|  s 
s    s 

s!  s 

n   n 
n   n 
n    n 

s!  s 
n   n 
n   n 

n   n 

s;  s 
n   n 
n   n 
n   n 
n   n 
n   n 

n   n 

s  •  s 

s'  s 
s    s 
n    n 

b   c. 

n   n 
s    s 
n   n 
n    n 
n    n 

s    s 
s    s 

s    s 
s    s 

s    s     . 
n   n    I 
n    n    r 

S      S       £ 

n    n    I 

s    s     s 
s    s     s 
n    n     r 
s    s     s 
n    n     r 
n    n     r 
n   n    r 
s    s     s 
n    n     r 

n    n     n 
n    n     n 
s    s     s 
n    n     n 
n    n     n 
n    n     n 
n    n     n 
n    n     n 
n    n     n 
n    n     n 
s    s     s 
n    n     n 
s    s     s 
s    s 
n    n     n 

a. 

n    n 
s    s 
n    n 
n    n 
n    n 
Q    n 
5     s 
s    s 

s 
1    n 
1    n 

;  \ 

\    n 

s 

n 
s 

n 

n 
s 
n 

n 

n 

n 

n 
n 

n 
n 

s 

s 

b. 

s 

n 
n 

s 

n 

n 
s 
n 
n 
s 
n 
s 

n 

n 
n 

n 

n 

s 

n 

n 
n 

n 
s 
n 

Alexander,  Geo 

Alexander,  S.  D 

Arreghi,  Antonio 

Atterbury,  A.  P 

Atterbury,  W.  W 

Beebe,  F.  G 

Bowden,  Samuel 

Bradner,  T.  S 

Brown,  Francis 

Buchanan,  W.D 

Chambers,  James 

Clark.  E.  L. 

Devins,  J.  B 

Dodd,  I.  S 

Dodge,  D.  Stuart 

Doench,  C 

n 

s 
n 
n 

a 

Durant,  W 

Douglas  T           .... 

Duffield,  H 

Edwards,  J.  H 

Elliot,  H.  B 

Elsing,  W.  T 

Fagnani,  C.  P 

Field.  H.M         

Floyd,  W.  B 

Ford,  H   

GiUelt.  C.  R 

Grandhenard,  H.  L 

Hall,  James 

Halsey    A    VV 

Harsha'w,  W.  R 

Hastirgs,  T.  S 

Hitchcock,  E.  W 

Hoadley,  J.  H 

Hunter;!. 

Jackson  SM..:;::: 

Jewett.  A.  D.  L 

King   Albeit  B 

King,  A.  D 

Leonhard,  Theo 

n    n 

(155) 


156        THE  FINAL  JUDGMENT  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY 


A — Ministers. 


I. 

II. 

■■■• 

■  V. 

^■ 

VI. 

Ministers. 

1 

i 

1 

\ 
J. 
a. 

n 

s 

n 

s 

n 
n 

s 

n 

s 
s 

s 

s 

n 

n 
n 

n 

s 

n 
n 

s 
n 

s 

s 

n 

s 
s 

n 
s 

n 
n 

s 

S6 
39 

b. 

n 

s 

n 

n 

n 

n 

s 

s 
n 
s 
s 

s 

n 
s 

s 
s 

n 
s 

n 

s 
n 
s 

n 

s 
s 

n 

s 

s 

n 
s 
n 

56 
39 

1 

n 
n 
s 
n 

n 
s 
n 

n 
s 
s 

s 

s 
s 

s 

n 

s 

s 
n 

n 

s 
s 

s 
s 

s 

s 

n 
s 

s 
s 
s 

n 

52 

44 

i 

1 

n 

n 
n 

n 
n 

n 

s 
s 
s 
n 

s 

s 

s 

n 

n 

s 

n 

s 
s 
n 

n 

s 

n 

s 
n 

55 

J 

_y 

a. 
n 

n 

n 
n 

s 

s 
n 
s 
s 

s 

s 

s 

n 

s 

n 

s 
n 

n 

s 
s 

s 
n 

n 

s 
s 

s 

n 

I 

55 
39 

1 

b. 

n 
s 
n 
n 

s 

n 
n 
s 

n 
s 

s 
s 

s 
n 

s 

n 
s 

s 

n 
s 
n 
s 

n 
n 

s 
n 

n 
s 

n 

s 

n 
s 
s 

55 
39 

! 

s 

s 

n 
n 

n 

^^ 

? 

s 
n 

s 
s 

n 

n 

n 

s 

n 

s 

n 

n 
s 

n 

n 

s 

s 

s 
n 

n 

57 
35 

1 

C 
a. 

■s 
n 

n 

n 

s 
n 
s 
s 

n 

s 

s 
n 

s 
n 

" 
n 

;; 

s 
n 

n 

s 

n 

s 

s 
s 

n 

n 
n 

s 

n 

57 

.35 

1 

b. 

s 
n 

s 
n 

n 

s 

s 

s 

s 

n 
s 

s 

s 

n 

n 

n 
s 

n 

n 

s 
n 

n 
s 

n 
n 

s 
n 

s 

s 

s 
n 

57 

1 

n 

s 

n 
s 

n 

s 
n 
s 
n 
s 
s 
s 

s 
s 
s 

n 

n 

n 
s 

s 
n 
s 
n 
n 
n 

s 
n 

s 
s 
s 
n 

n 
s 
n 
n 
s 
s 
s 
s 
n 
n 

s 

55 
41 

n 

n 
n 

n 
n 

n 

5 

s 
n 

s 
s 

n 
s 

s 
n 

s 

n 
s 

s 

n 
n 

s 
s 
n 
s 

s 
s 

n 
s 

n 

n 

s 
s 

n 
s 

s 

55 
41 

n 
s 

n 
s 
n 

n 

n 

s 

s 
s 
s 
s 
n 

s 

n 

s 

n 

n 

s 

s 
n 

n 

s 

n 

s 

s 

^ 

n 

s 
n 

^ 
s 
s 

s 
54 

42 

a. 
n 

n 
n 
s 
n 

n 

s 

s 

s 
s 

s 
n 
s 
s 
s 

n 
s 

n 
s 

s 

n 

s 
s 

s 

s 

s 

s 
s 

n 

s 
n 

n 
s 

54 

42 

b. 
s 

54 

42 

n 

s 

n 

n 

s 

s 
n 

s 

s 

s 
s 

n 

n 
n 

n 
s 

s 

n 

s 

n 

s 
s 

n 

5 

n 
n 

s 

s 

n 
n 

s 

56 
39 

2 

n 

s 
n 

n 
n 

s 

s 
n 

s 
s 

n 

s 

s 

s 
n 

s 
n 

n 
n 

s 
s 

s 

s 

n 

s 

n 

s 
s 

n 

s 

56 
39 

n 

s 

n 
s 

n 

n 

s 

s 

s 

n 
n 

s 
n 

n 

s 

s 

n 

n 
s 

s 
s 

n 

s 

s 
s 

n 

52 
44 

b. 
n 

n 

s 
n 

n 
n 

n 

s 
s 

s 

n 
n 

n 
n 

n 

s 
n 

n 

s 

n 

s 
s 

n 

n 

s 
s 

n 

s 

54 
42 

c. 

n 

s 

n 
s 

s 

s 
n 

s 

s 
s 
n 

s 
n 

s 
n 

n 

s 

s 

n 
n 

s 
n 

s 

s 

n 
n 

s 

s 

s 
n 
s 

52 
44 

Littlefield,  M.  S 

Lowrie,  J.  C 

Lorenz,  D.  E 

Martin,  W.  M 

Maller>-,  C.  P 

Marling,  F- H 

McEwen,  H.  T 

Mcllvaine,  J.  H 

McKinney,  Alex 

McLean,  Alex 

McMillan,  D.J 

Miller,  H    G           .... 

s 

n 

s 

n 

n 

s 

n 
s 

Moore,  W.  C  

s 

Nightingale.  J.  C 

s 

Northrup,  I.  H 

s 

Overton,  D.  H 

n 

Patterson,  J.  G 

Pajson,  E.  P 

Payson,  G.  S 

Pisek   V 

s 

n 
n 

Pritchard,  Hugh 

Ramsay,  J.  S 

Redmon,D 

s 
n 
s 

Rossiter,'s.  B 

Ruliffson,  A.  G 

Rice,  W.  A 

n 

s 

n 

Schaff,  P 

n 

Shaw,  J.  B 

Shearer,  Geo.  L 

Shiland,  A 

s 
s 

Smith,  W.  M 

Stitt,  W.  C 

Stoddard,  C.  A 

Suttou,  J.  F 

Sproull,  A.  W 

n 
s 

s 

s 

Spining,  G.  L 

Thompson,  C.  L 

Thompson,  J.  J 

Tyn^all,  H.  M 

Van  Dyke,  H 

Vincent,  M.  R. 

n 

n 

s 

n 

Voegelin,  F.  E 

Wall,  T.  G 

I 

Waite,  A.  L.  R 

Watson,  W.  S 

Webster,  G.  S 

s 
s 

White,  E.N 

WiUard,  L 

Wvlie   D   G 

n 

s 

No.     of     votes    "not 

No.    of    votes    "  sus- 
tained."  

55 

THE  FINAL  JUDGMENT  OF  THE   PRESBYTERY 


15: 


B- 

-Elders. 

Elders. 

l. 

n. 

HL 

IV. 

V. 

VL 

Churches. 

a. 

i 

CJ 

! 

1 

0 

1 

1 

CJ 

a 
in 

s 

n 
n 
s 
s 
s 
s 

s 
n 

s 

n 

n 
n 

n 
n 

s 
s 

n 
n 

n 

n 

s 

17 

15 

1 

0 

1 

n 

s 
s 

s 

s 
s 

n 
s 

n 

n 
s 
s 

s 
s 

n 

;; 

n 
s 

16 
14 

h 

£ 

u 

1 

s 
s 

16 

& 

I 

n 
s 

s 

s 
s 

s 

s 

s 
s 

n 
s 
n 
n 

n 
n 

s 
s 

s 
n 

n 

n 

'5 
17 

2 

s 

n 

s 

s 
s 

s 
s 
s 
s 

s 
s 

n 
s 

n 

n 

n 

s 

s 
n 

n 
s 

15 
I. 

n 
s 

s 
s 

s 
s 

s 

s 

n 

s 

n 
n 

s 

s 

n 
n 

s 

IS 
17 

b. 

n 
s 

s 
s 
s 
s 

s 

s 
s 

n 
s 

n 
n 
n 
n 

s 
s 
s 

s 

n 
n 
n 
n 

s 

15 

17 

s 
n 
n 

s 

s 

s 
s 
s 
n 

s 

s 

n 

n 
n 

s 
s 

s 
n 

n 
s 

i6 
16 

s 

n 
n 

s 
s 

s 

s 

s 

n 

n 
s 
s 
s 
s 
s 
n 

n 
n 

s 

J 

s 

n 

s 
s 
s 
s 
s 
s 

s 

n 
s 

n 
n 

s 

s 

s 

n 
n 

s 

16 
16 

b. 

n 

n 

s 
s 
s 
s 
1  s 
s 
n 
s 

n 
n 
s 
n 

n 

n 
s 
s 

s 

s 

n 

n 
n 
s 

16 
11 

s 

s 
n 

s 

s 

s 

s 

s 
s 

n 
s 

n 
n 

n 
s 
s 
s 
s 
s 
n 

n 
n 

s 

15 
17 

a. 

n 

s 

s 
s 

s 
s 

s 
s 

n 
s 

n 

n 
s 
s 
s 
s 

n 
n 

n 

s 

'5 

17 

n 
17 

c. 

s 

s 

s 
s 
s 
s 
s 

s 
s 

n 

s 

n 

n 
s 
s 
s 

s 
s 
n 

n 
n 
n 

s 

15 

17 

n 

s 
s 

n 
s 

n 
n 

n 
n 

n 
n 

s 
s 

n 
n 

n 
n 

s 

17 
15 

b. 

n 

n 
n 
n 
n 
n 
n 
s 

17 

15 

n 

n 
s 

s 
s 

s 
n 

s 
n 

s 
n 

n 
n 

s 

s 

s 

n 

n 
n 

s 

16 
M 

b. 

n 
n 

s 
s 
s 
s 

s 

n 

n 
n 

n 
n 

s 
s 
s 

n 
n 

n 

s 

16 
M 

Bethany 

Brick.. ^ 

Calvary 

Tompkins,  Jas 

Ledoux,  A.  R 

Ketchum,  A.  P 

Mickens,  Wm 

Robinson,  Andrew.. 

McDowell,  Jas 

RoA-land,  H.E 

Mcjimpsey,  E 

McWilliani,  Jno.... 

Sterry,  Geo.  E 

Reeve,  Samuel 

Willard,  S.  H 

Moorhead,  Jos 

Woodbury.  C.  H.  .. 
Johnson,  Robert.  .. 
Anderson,  Thomas. 

King,  G.  C 

Hawley,  H.  Q 

Ware,  Jas.  E 

Lay,  Geo.  C 

Dodge,  C.  H 

Onderdonk,  W.  H.. 
Houston,  Robert  ... 

Anderson,   Jas 

Worrall,  Wm.  R. . . . 

Garey,  C.  E 

Bond,  Thos 

flentle,  Robert 

Wheelock,  W.  A.  .. 
Jaftray,  Robert.    ... 

Leggett,  C.  P 

Drummond,  R 

No.  of  votes  "  not 
sustained" 

No.  of  votes  "sus- 
tained"  

s 
n 

s 

s 

s 
s 
s 

s 

Christ. . 

E.  Harlem 

Sth  Ave 

First.. 

Fourth 

4th  Ave 

14th  St. 

Harlem 

Knox 

s 
s 
n 

s 

n 

n 

s 

Madison  Sq  . . . . 
Morrisania,  ist.. 

New  York 

North 

Park 

Phillips    

Puritans 

Riverdale    

Rutgers 

Scotch 

Seventh 

13th  St  

Tremont 

University  PI  . . 
Union  Tabern. . 
Wash.  Heights  . 

West .... 

West  End 

Westminster  . . . 

$ 
s 

n 
n 

n 
n 

s 

14 
16 

I. 

n. 

HL 

IV. 

V 

VL 

Total. 

1 

V 

1 

1 

67 
6r 

1 

1 

72 

54 

i 
0 

1 

73 
49 

24 

i 

1 

en 

6q 
57 

1 

CJ 

I 

70 
58 

12 

2 

69 
59 

a. 

69 
5Q 

: 

69 
59 

10 

72 
55 

: 

^ 

a.  b. 

67 
61 

b. 

6q 

10 

0. 

67 

61 

6 

a. 

72 
54 

b. 

72 

54 

18 

a. 

73 

49 

24 

b. 

7? 
49 

69 

57 

'■  Sustained  " 

1 
55  55  55 

Majority  not  to  sustain  .... 

After  the  vote  had  been  taken  the  Moderator  announced  that  Dr.  Briggs  had  been 
acquitted  on  all  the  charges.  In  accordance  with  previous  action  of  the  Presbytery,  he  then 
appointed,  from  among  those  who  had  voted  not  to  sustain,  a  Committee  to  formulate  the 
opinion  of  the  majority.  The  Committee  consisted  of  Rev.  Drs.  Geo.  Ale.\ander  and  Henry 
Van  Dyke,  with  Elder  Robert  Jaflfray. 


158        THE  FINAL  JUDGMENT  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY 

B.    The  Judgment  of  the  Presbytery,  Jaii.  gth,  1893. 

The  Committee  appointed  to  bring  in  the  result  of  the 
vote  and  the  judgment  of  the  judicatory  begs  leave  to 
report  as  follows  : 

The  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  against  the  Rev.  Chas.  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
having  been  dismissed  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York 
on  November  4th,  1891,  was  remanded  by  the  General 
Assembly  of  1892  to  the  same  Presbytery  with  instruc- 
tions that  "  it  be  brought  to  issue  and  tried  on  the 
merits  thereof  as  speedily  as  possible." 

In  obedience  to  this  mandate  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York  has  tried  the  case.  It  has  listened  to  the 
evidence  and  argument  of  the  Committee  of  Prosecu- 
tion acting  in  fidelity  to  the  duty  committed  to  them. 
It  has  heard  the  defence  and  evidence  of  the  Rev. 
Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  presented  in  accordance  with 
the  rights  secured  to  every  minister  of  the  Church. 

The  Presbytery  has  kept  in  mind  these  established 
principles  of  our  polity  "that  no  man  can  rightly  be 
convicted  of  heresy  by  inference  or  implication  ";  that  in 
the  interpretation  of  "  ambiguous  expressions  "  "  candor 
requires  that  a  court  should  favor  the  accused  by  put- 
ting upon  his  words  the  more  favorable  rather  than  the 
less  favorable  construction  ";  and  that  "  there  are  truths 
and  forms  with  respect  to  which  men  of  good  character 
may  differ." 

Giving  due  consideration  to  the  defendant's  explana- 
tions of  the  language  used  in  his  Inaugural  Address, 
accepting  his  frank  and  full  disclaimer  of  the  interpreta- 
tion which  has  been  put  upon  some  of  its  phrases  and 
illustrations,  crediting  his  affirmations  of  loyalty  to  the 
standards  of  the  Church  and  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  as 
the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  the  Pres- 


THE  FINAL  JUDGMENT  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY        I59 


bytery  does  not  find  that  he  has  transgressed  the  limits 
of  liberty  allowed  under  our  Constitution  to  scholarship 
and  opinion. 

Therefore,  without  expressing  approval  of  the  critical 
or  theological  views  embodied  in  the  Inaugural  Address, 
or  the  manner  in  which  they  have  been  expressed  and 
illustrated,  the  Presbytery  pronounces  the  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  fully  acquitted  of  the  offences  alleged 
against  him — the  several  charges  and  specifications  ac- 
cepted for  probation  having  been  "  not-sustained  "  by 
the  following  vote  : 


Specification 

Charge  I  ^-  ;; 

I  Specification 
"•-{'  (a 

Charge]  J;  ;; 

{Specification  . 
Charge  j  b.  ".  *. 

(Specification.. 

IV.  ^r^u  U.  . . 

/Charge -Jj^ 

!  Specification  . 

,»Y    j  Specification  . 
^^-  I  Charge 


Sustained. 

Not 

Sustained. 

Minis- 

Eld- 

To- 

Minis- 

Eld- 

To- 

ters. 

ers. 

tal. 

ters. 

ers. 

tal. 

41 

17 

58 

55 

15 

70 

42 

17 

59 

54 

15 

69 

42 

17 

59 

54 

15 

69 

42 

17 

59 

54 

15 

69 

39 

16 

55 

56 

16 

72 

39 

16 

55 

5b 

16 

72 

39 

16 

55 

56 

16 

72 

39 

16 

55 

56 

16 

72 

44 

17 

61 

52 

15 

67 

44 

17 

61 

52 

15 

67 

42 

17 

59 

54 

15 

bg 

44 

17 

61 

52 

15 

b7 

39 

15 

54 

55 

17 

72 

39 

15 

54 

55 

17 

72 

39 

15 

54 

55 

17 

72 

35 

14 

49 

57 

16 

73 

35 

14 

49 

57 

16 

73 

35 

14 

49 

57 

16 

73 

41 

16 

57 

55 

14 

69 

41 

16 

57 

55 

14 

69 

The  above  is  the  correct  vote. 

S.  D.  Alexander,  Staged  Clerk. 


160       THE  FINAL  JUDGMENT  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY 

Accordingly,  the  Presbytery,  making  full  recognition 
of  the  ability,  sincerity  and  patience  with  which  the 
Committee  of  Prosecution  have  performed  the  onerous 
duty  assigned  to  them,  does  now,  to  the  extent  of  its 
constitutional  power,  relieve  said  Committee  from  fur- 
ther responsibility  in  connection  with  this  case. 

In  so  doing  the  Presbytery  is  not  undertaking  to 
decide  how  far  that  Committee  is  subject  to  the  author- 
ity of  the  body  appointing  it,  but  intends  by  this  action 
to  express  an  earnest  conviction  that  the  grave  issues 
involved  in  this  case  will  be  more  wisely  and  justly 
determined  by  calm  investigation  and  fraternal  discus- 
sion than  by  judicial  arraignment  and  process. 

In  view  of  the  present  disquietude  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  of  the  obligation  resting  upon  all  Christians 
to  have  tender  concern  for  the  consciences  of  their  breth- 
ren, the  Presbytery  earnestly  counsels  its  members  to 
avoid,  on  the  one  hand,  hasty  or  over-confident  state- 
ment of  private  opinion  on  points  concerning  which 
profound  and  reverent  students  of  God's  Word  are  not 
yet  agreed,  and,  on  the  other,  suspicions  and  charges  of 
false  teaching  which  are  not  clearly  capable  of  proof. 

Moreover,  the  Presbytery  advises  and  exhorts  all  sub- 
ject to  its  authority  to  regard  the  many  and  great  things 
in  which  we  agree  rather  than  the  few  and  minor  things 
in  which  we  differ,  and  turning  from  the  paths  of  con- 
troversy, to  devote  their  energies  to  the  great  and  urgent 
work  of  the  Church  which  is  the  proclamation  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  edifying  of  the  Body  of  Christ. 
(Signed), 

George  Alexander, 
Henry  Van  Dyke, 
Robert  Jaffray. 


THE  FINAL  JUDGMENT  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY        Jgl 

A  Resolution  to  lay  the  second  section  on  the  table 
was  lost  by  a  vote  of  47  to  58  ;  after  which  the  Report 
was  adopted  in  its  several  parts.  Whereupon  the  Report 
was  adopted  as  a  whole  by  a  majority  vote,  and  the 
Moderator  declared  that  this  be  the  judgment  of  the 
Court,  and  that  it  be  entered  accordingly. 


THE   WRITINOS    OK 

PROFESSOR  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D. 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS,  PUBLISHERS. 


Xhe  Defence  of  Professor  Brig^s^s 

before  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  December  13,  14,  15,  and  19, 

1892.     Crown  octavo,  paper,  50  cents,  net. 

This    argument    in  the  greatest  of   the  ecclesiastical  trials   of  our  day  is 

destined  to  become  historical,  and  its  importance  to  all  who  would  inform 

themselves  as  to  the  position  of   the  defendant  is,  of  course,   of   the  first 

importance. 

The  Authority  of  Holy  ScHpture. 

Inaugural  Address  of  Professor  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  upon 

his  transfer  to  the  Edward  Robinson  Chair  of  Biblical  Theology  in 

the  Union  Theological  Seminary  of  New  York,     A  new  edition, 

with  a  preface  and  additional  notes.    Crown  octavo,  paper,  50  cents, 

net. 

"  In  this  pamphlet  is  to  be  found  a  full  and  fair  statement  of  Dr.  Briggs' 

position,  and  the  adherents  of  nearly  all  the  different  creeds  will  read  it  with  a 

recognition  of  its  great  importance  as  a  manifestation  of  the  trend  of  current 

religfious  thought.     Dr.  Briggs  is  very  outspoken  in  bis  criticism  of  the  barriers 

which  an  extreme  dogmatism  has  raised  against  a  common-sense  study  of  the 

Bible The  strength  of  Dr.  Briggs' argument  is  based  on  the  assertion  that 

the  ethical  element  in  the  Bible  has  been  neglected,  while  the  purely  theological 
tenets  have  been  unduly  brought  into  prominence.  '  The  greatest  sin  against 
the  Bible,'  he  says,  '  has  been  the  neglect  of  the  ethics  of  Jesus.' " 

Xhe  Case  ag^alnst  Professor  Brigfg^s. 

The  Charges  and  Specifications  submitted  to  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York,  October,  1891,  and  the  Response  of  Professor  Briggs, 
November  4  ;  the  Action  of  the  Presbytery  in  Dismissing  the 
Case  ;  the  Complaint  to  the  Synod,  the  Appeal  of  the  Prosecuting 
Committee  to  the  General  Assembly,  November  13  ;  the  Argument 
of  Professor  Briggs  before  the  General  Assembly  against  Enter- 
taining and  Sustaining  the  Appeal,  May  26,  1892,  and  the  Action 
of  the  General  Assembly.     Crown  octavo,  paper,  50  cents,  net. 

Biblical  History. 

A   Lecture   delivered  at    Union  Theological   Seminary.     Crown 

octavo,  paper,  30  cents,  net. 
"  It  epitomizes  the  consensus  of  scholarship  as  to  the  formation  of  the  Old 

Testament  and  shows  its  splendid  results In  this  little  pamphlet  the 

ordinary  reader  can  get  the  pith  of  the  controversial  Uterature  of  the  greatest  of 
v:holaxs."—TAe  Critic. 


PMOFESSOR  BRIO  OS'S  WRITINGS. 


The  Hig^lier  Criticism  of  tlie  Hexa- 
teucli. 

By  Charles  Augustus  Briggs,  D.D.,  Edward  Robinson  Pro- 
fessor  of  Biblical  Theology  in  the  Union  Theological  Serai- 
nary,  New  York.    Crown  octavo,  $1.75. 

The  most  prominent  exponent  of  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  in  America  is  Professor  Briggs.  If  he  is  not  at  the  same 
time  the  most  learned  and  fully  equipped  scholar  among  us  in  this  field, 
it  would  not  be  easy  to  name  his  peer.  For  many  years  his  contributions 
to  the  literature  of  the  subject  in  the  great  theological  reviews  have 
been  widely  read  and  have  been  the  object  of  much  criticism  from  the 
adherents  of  the  opposite  school.  Owing  to  the  prominence  and  the 
great  importance  of  the  trial  to  which  he  has  been  subjected  because  of 
bis  views  on  Old  Testament  Criticism,  his  interpretation  of  the  princi- 
ples that  he  champions  is  of  the  highest  consequence. 

Many  years  ago  he  began  the  preparation  of  a  book  on  the  Higher 
Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch,  but  deeming  the  times  not  yet  ripe  for  it, 
it  was  laid  aside  for  other  work.  The  events  of  the  past  few  months 
render  it  necessary  for  the  author  to  define  his  position  in  regard  to 
the  Hexateuch,  and  for  this  reason  he  publishes  this  volume,  which  pre- 
sents the  result  of  his  studies  and  includes  a  large  amount  of  fresh 
evidence,  which  now  appears  for  the  first  time. 

The  results  of  his  researches  correspond,  in  the  main,  with  the 
opinions  which  have  been  formed  independently  by  leading  Biblical 
scholars  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  But  it  is  now  time  that  these  ques- 
tions should  no  longer  be  confined  to  theological  schools  and  profes- 
sional circles.  It  is  with  the  aim  of  contributing  to  the  readjustment 
of  opinions  and  to  a  better  understanding  and  higher  appreciation  of 
the  documents  of  the  Bible  that  the  book  has  been  written,  which  is 
designed  for  the  general  public  rather  than  for  Hebrew  students,  and, 
for  the  most  part,  technical  material  has  been  put  in  the  Appendix, 
which  constitutes  a  considerable  part  of  the  volume. 


PROFESSOR  BRIOGS'S   WRITINGS. 


Xlie    Bible,    the    Cliurcli,   and    the 
Reason. 

The  Three  Great  Fountains  of  Divine  Authority.  By  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.D.,  Edward  Robinson  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology  in 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York.     Crown  octavo,  $175. 

"  It  consists  of  lectures  delivered  at  different  times  since  the  recent  assault 
upon  him.  In  these  lectures  he  does  not  indicate  the  least  inclination  to  beat  a 
retreat,  cry  for  quarter,  or  even  secure  a  truce.  And  yet,  with  some  few  excep- 
tions, he  does  not  exhibit  personal  feeling,  nor  defend  himself  personally  from 
the  charges  made  against  him.  He  simply  elaborates  and  substantiates  the 
positions  in  his  inaugural  which  have  subjected  him  to  pubhc  criticism  and  to  a 
possible  trial  for  heresy." — The  Christian  Union. 

"  The  problems  which  are  discussed  with  masterly  power  in  this  volume  are 
not  those  of  Presbyterianism,  or  of  Protestantism,  but  of  Christianity,  and, 
indeed,  of  all  Biblical  religion.  To  any  man  for  whom  the  question  of  God  and 
revelation  has  an  endlessly  fascinating  interest,  the  book  will  prove  suggestive  and 
stimulating.  We  cannot  see  why  even  the  Israelite  and  the  Roman  Catholic  should 
not  desire  to  taste— despite  the  traditions  of  synagogue  and  Mother  Church — 
this  latest  forbidden  fruit  of  the  tree  of  knowledge."— ZA^  Literary  World. 

"  But  on  a  calm  review  of  this  book,  while  making  due  allowance  for  some  of 
the  characterizations  of  his  opponents,  and  without  entering  into  the  merits  of 
the  subject  involved,  one  must  reach  the  candid  conclusion  that  Professor  Briggs 
is  deeply  reverent  and  devout  in  his  attitude  towards  the  Word  of  God  ;  that  he 
is  conscientiously  and  earnestly  aiming  at  its  exaltation  and  its  stronger  hold 
upon  the  minds  and  hearts  of  men.  He  says  :  '  Criticism  makes  the  Bible 
more  real,  more  historic,  more  pregnant  with  holy  meaning  than  ever  before. 
....  Think  not  the  critics  are  destroying  the  Bible  which  they  study  with  so 
much  enthusiasm  and  love.  They  have  enthroned  it  in  a  higher  position  than 
it  has  ever  held  before  in  the  estimation  of  the  world.'  Surely,  an  impartial 
judgment  will  not  fail  to  give  full  credit  for  purity  of  motive  and  loftiness  of 
purpose  to  a  man  who  writes  like  this." — The  Evangelist. 

"  It  deals,  as  the  author  observes,  with  '  matters  which  lie  at  the  root  of  our 
common  Christianity,'  and  largely,  at  any  rate,  '  with  questions  of  truth  and 
fact,'  to  be  determined,  not  by  hasty  and  superficial  writers  in  periodicals,  but 
'by  patient,  diligent,  painstaking,  exhaustive  investigation  of  truth  and  fact.' 
(Preface  p.  ix.)  It  appeals,  therefore,  to  men  of  all  shades  of  churchmanship, 
provided  that  they  recognize  the  duty  of  continually  absorbing  fresh  elements 
of  truth,  which  both  may  and  must  more  or  less  modify  the  conceptions  already 
adopted  by  the  common  consent  of  past  ages.  But,  if  I  may  say  so,  it  appeals 
most  of  all  to  those  who  attach  the  highest  value  to  the  principles  of  the  Refor- 
mation, and  who,  therefore,  recognize  a  Bible  within  the  Bible,  of  which  the 
experience  of  the  Christian  life  in  the  community  and  in  the  individual  is  the 
true  test." — Professor  T.  K.  Cheyne,  D.D.,  in  the  London  Academy. 


PROFESSOR  BRIO  OS'S  WR1TJN08. 


Biblical  Study. 

Its  Principles,  Methods,  and  History,  together  with  a  Catalogue 
of  Books  of  Reference.  By  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  Edward 
Robinson  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology  in  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York.  Fourth  Edition.  One  volume,  crown  8vo, 
$2.50. 

"A  choice  book,  for  which  we  wish  wide  circulation  and  deep  influence  In  its  own 
land  and  also  recognition  among  us.  The  author  maintains  his  position  with  so  much 
spirit  and  in  such  beautiful  language  that  his  book  makes  delightful  reading,  and  it  is 
particularly  instructive  for  Germans  on  account  of  the  very  characteristic  extracts 
from  the  writings  of  English  theologians  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries. 
Moreover,  he  is  unusually  familiar  with  German  literature  of  recent  date  as  well  as 
with  that  of  the  earlier  period."— Zarnc*e'»  Literaturischts  Centralblatt  fur  Beutsch- 
land. 

♦'Here  is  a  theological  writer,  thoroughly  scientific  In  his  methods,  and  yet  not 
ashamed  to  call  himself  evangelical.  One  great  merit  of  this  handbook  is  the  light 
which  it  throws  on  the  genesis  of  modem  criticism  and  exegesis.  Those  who  use  it 
will  escape  the  crudities  of  many  English  advocates  of  half-understood  theories.  Not 
the  least  of  its  merits  is  the  well-selected  catalogue  of  books  of  reference— English, 
French,  and  German.  We  are  sure  that  no  student  will  regret  sending  for  the  book." 
—  The  Academy y  London. 

"  Dr.  Briggs  begins  with  a  chapter  upon  the  advantages  of  Biblical  study,  and  the 
subjects  of  the  following  chapters  are  :  Exegetical  Theology,  the  Languages  of  the 
Bible,  the  Bible  and  Criticism,  the  Canon  and  Text  of  the  Bible,  Higher  Criticism, 
Literary  Study  of  the  Bible,  Hebrew  Poetry,  Interpietation  of  Scripture,  Biblical 
Theology,  and  the  Scriptures  as  a  Means  of  Grace.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  subjects 
occupy  a  wide  range,  and,  ably  treated  as  they  are,  the  volume  becomes  one  of  real 
value  and  utility.  Appended  to  the  work  is  a  valuable  catalogue  of  books  of  reference 
in  biblical  studies,  and  three  indexes— of  Scriptures,  of  topics,  and  of  books  and 
authors.  The  publishers  have  done  honor  to  the  work,  and  it  deserved  it."— TA* 
Churchvian. 

*'  The  minister  who  thoroughly  masters  this  volume  will  find  himself  mentahy  in- 
Tlgorated,  as  well  as  broadened  in  his  scope  of  thought ;  will  almost  certainly  be  able  to 
better  satisfy  himself  in  his  understanding  of  what  the  truth  is  which  from  the  Bible 
he  ought  to  preach  to  men ;  and  so  will  speak  from  his  pulpit  with  new  force,  and 
find  his  words  mightier,  through  God,  to  the  pulling  down  of  strongholds."- .Boston 
Congregationalist. 

"After  all  that  we  have  heard  of  the  higher  criticism,  it  is  refreshing  to  find  so 

scholarly  and  trenchant  defences  of  the  old  paths His  historical  account  of  the 

movement  and  developement  among  the  English-speaking  scholars  is  very  valuable. 
This,  and  the  chapter  on  the  '  Literary  Study  of  the  Bible,'  are  among  the  best  in  this 
excellent  book. "—A^,.?w  York  CAnsCia/t  ^rf^ocate  (Methodist). 

"  We  are  constrained  to  rank  this  book  as  one  of  the  signs  of  the  times  in  the  Amer- 
ican church.  It  marks  the  rising  tide  of  Biblical  scholarship,  Christian  liberty  of 
thought  and  evangelical  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures."— CAm^art  ilnwn. 

*'  There  are  many  grounds  on  which  the  work  may  be  earnestly  commended.  Large 
reading  in  German  and  English,  quick  apprehension  of  the  salient  points  of  opposing; 
theories,  an  unflagging  earneetness  of  purpose,  and  very  positive  belief  in  his  positions 
conspire  to  make  the  work  instructive  and  attractive.  But  above  all  these  excellences 
there  shines  out  the  author's  deep  reverence  for  the  whole  ^\hW"—Thi  Eixaminer 
(Baptist,  N.  Y.) 


PROFESSOR  BRIO  OS'S  WRITING 8. 


Messianic  Prophecy. 

The  Prediction  of  the  fulfilment  of  Redemption  through  the 
Messiah.  A  critical  study  of  the  Messianic  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  the  order  of  their  development.  By  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.D.,  Edward  Robinson  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology 
in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York.  One  volume^ 
crown  octavo,  $2.50. 

""Messianic  Prophecy  is  a  subject  of  no  common  interest,  and  this  book  is  no  ordin- 
ary book.  It  is,  on  the  contrary,  a  work  of  the  very  first  order,  the  ripe  product  of 
years  of  study  upon  the  highest  themes.    It  is  exegesis  in  maater-hand,  about  its 

noblest  business It  has  been  worth  while  to  commend  this  book  at  some- 

length  to  the  attention  of  Bible  students,  because  both  the  subject  and  the  treatment 
entitle  it  to  rank  among  the  very  foremost  works  of  the  generation  in  the  department 
of  Exegetical  Theology.  Union  Seminary  is  to  be  congratulated  that  it  is  one  of  her 
Professors  who,  in  a  noble  line  of  succession  has  produced  it.  The  American  Church 
is  to  be  congratulated  that  the  author  is  an  American,  and  Presbyterians  that  he  is  a 
Presbyterian.  A  Church  that  can  yield  such  books  has  large  possibilities."— iVew 
Toj-k  Evangelist. 

"It  is  second  in  importance  to  no  theological  work  which  has  appeared  in  this 
country  during  the  present  century."— TA*  Critic. 

"  His  arduous  labor  has  been  well  expended,  for  he  has  finally  produced  a  book 
which  will  give  great  pleasure  to  Christians  of  all  denominations The  pro- 
found learning  displayed  in  the  book  commends  it  to  the  purchase  of  all  clergymen 
who  wish  for  the  most  critical  and  exact  exposition  of  a  difficult  theme  ;  while  its 
earnestness  and  eloquence  will  win  for  it  a  place  in  the  library  of  every  devout  lay- 
man."—iV.  Y.  Journal  of  Commerce. 

"  It  is  rich  with  the  fruits  of  years  of  zealous  and  unwearied  study,  and  of  an  ample 
teaming.  In  it  we  have  the  first  English  work  on  Messianic  Prophecy  which  stands 
on  the  level  of  modern  Biblical  studies,  It  is  one  of  the  most  important  and  valuable 
contributions  of  American  scholarships  to  those  studies.  It  is  always  more  than  in- 
structive :  it  is  spiritually  helpful.  We  commend  the  work  not  only  to  ministers,  but 
to  intelligent  laymen."— T/te  Independent. 

"  On  the  pervading  and  multiform  character  of  this  promise,  see  a  recent,  as  well 
as  valuable  authority,  in  the  volume  of  Dr.  Briggs,  of  the  New  York  Theological 
Seminary,  on 'Messianic  Prophecy.' " — W.  E.  Gladstone. 

"  Prof.  Briggs'  Messianic  Prophecy  is  a  most  excellent  book,  in  which  I  greatly 
rejoice."— Prof.  Franz  Delitzsch. 

"  All  scholars  will  join  in  recognizing  its  singular  usefulness  as  a  text-book.  It  has 
been  much  wanted."— Rev.  Canon  Chetne. 

"It  is  a  book  that  will  be  consulted  and  prized  by  the  learned,  and  that  will  add  to 
the  author's  deservedly  high  reputation  for  scholarship.  Evidences  of  the  ability, 
learning  and  patient  research  of  the  author  are  apparent  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end  of  the  volume,  while  the  style  is  remarkably  fine."— PAi/ff.  Presbyterian. 

"  His  new  book  on  Messianic  Phrophecy  is  a  worthy  companion  to  his  indispens- 
able text-book  on  Biblical  study  ....  What  is  most  of  all  required  to  insure  the 
future  of  Old  Testament  studies  in  this  country  is  that  those  who  teach  should  satisfy 
their  students  of  their  historic  connection  with  the  religion  and  theology  of  the  past. 
Prof.  Briggs  has  the  consciousness  of  such  a  connection  in  a  very  full  degree,  and 
yet  he  combines  this  with  a  frank  and  unreserved  adhesion  to  the  principles  of  modern 

criticisms He  has  produced  the  first  English  text-book  on  the  subject  of 

Messianic  Prophecy  which  a  modern  teacher  can  use."— iTA^  London  Academy. 


PROFESSOR  BRIGOS'S  WRITINGS. 


^Whither? 

A  Theological  Question  for  the  Times.  By  Charles  Augustus 
Briggs,  D.D.,  Edward  Robinson  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology 
in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York.  Third  Edition. 
One  volume,  crown  8vo,  $1.75, 

"He  shows  that  genuine  Christianity  has  nothing  to  lose,  but  much  to  gain,  by  un- 
fettered thought  and  by  the  ripest  modern  scholarship  ;  that  the  doctrines  which  pro- 
gressive iheofogy  threatens  are  no  essential  part  of  the  historic  faith,  but  rather  out- 
worn garments,  woven  with  warp  and  woof  of  tradition  and  speculation  ;  that  being 
hung  upon  the  noble  form  of  Christianity,  have  obscured  its  real  proportions,  and 
that  '  the  higher  criticism  '  of  which  timid  and  unscholarly  souls  are  so  much  afraid, 
is  really  making  the  Bible  more  manifestly  the  book  of  God,  by  relieving  it  from  the 
false  interpretations  of  men."— The  Ft^esd;  I'hiladelphia. 

"  The  book  is  a  strong  one.  It  is  packed  with  weighty  matter.  Its  reach  is  larger 
than  any  of  the  author's  other  works,  though  its  compass  is  smaller.  It  contains  only 
300  pagi":s,  yet  it  is  a  critical  treatise  on  Westminster  and  modern  theology,  and  also 
on  church  life  and  Christian  unity.  It  is  written  in  nervous,  virile  English  that  holds 
attention.  It  has  unusual  grasp  and  force.  The  title  and  the  chapter  headings  sug- 
gest compression:  'Whither?'  'Drifting,'  'Orthodoxy,'  'Changes,'  'Shifting,' 
'Excesses,'  'Failures,'  'Departures,'  'Perplexities,'  'Barriers,'  'Thither.'  There 
is  a  whole  history  in  some  of  these  words,  and  a  whole  sermon  iu  others."— TA* 
Cfitic,  New  York. 

"At  the  same  time  it  is  irenic  both  in  tone  and  tendency.  It  is  noble  from 
beginning  to  end,  though  the  author  may  possibly  place  unnecessary  emphasis  on 
the  organic  unity  of  the  different  denominations  of  Christendom  as  the  condition 
Ijrecedent  for  a  true  catholic  unity.  There  is  not  a  touch  or  smell  of  rationalism  or 
rationalistic  speculation  in  the  book,  and  freely  as  the  author  deals  with  his  oppo- 
nents, it  is  an  honest  freedom,  which  will  promote  good  feeling  even  amid  debate."— 
The  Independent. 

American  Presbyterianism : 

Its  Origin  and  Early  History,  together  with  an  Appendix  of  Let- 
ters and  Documents,  many  of  which  have  recently  been  discovered. 
By  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  Edward  Robinson  Professor  of 
BibHcal  Theology  in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 
I  volume,  crown  8vo,  with  Maps.     $3.00. 

"Tl.e  Presbyterian  Church  owes  a  debt  of  gratitude  to  the  enthusiasm  and  antiquar- 
ian research  of  Professor  Briggs.  He  seems  to  have  seized  the  foremost  place  among 
them,  and  his  vigorous,  skilful,  and  comprehensive  researches  put  all  Protestant 
Christians,  and  especially  Congregationalists,  under  obligation  to  him.."— Boston, 
Cotigregationalist. 

"This  is  an  admirable  and  exhaustive  work,  full  of  vigorous  thinking,  clear  and 
careful  statement,  incisive  and  judicious  criticism,  minute  yet  comprehensive  research. 
It  is  such  a  book  as  only  a  man  with  a  gift  for  historical  inquiry  and  an  enthusiasm 
for  the  history  and  principles  of  his  Church  could  have  produced.  It  represents  an 
amazing  amount  of  labor.  Dr.  Briggs  seems  to  have  searched  every  available  source, 
British  and  American,  for  printed  or  written  documents  bearing  on  his  subjects,  and 
he  has  met  with  wonderful  success.  He  has  made  many  important  discoveries,  illus- 
trative of  the  Puritan  men  and  period,  useful  to  himself,  but  certain  also  to  be  helpful 
to  all  future  Inquiries  in  this  field."— i?/t^i«A  Quarterly  Review. 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS,  PubUshers, 

743   and  745   Broadway,  New  York. 


